18.04.30 - Complaint - Filed

Case 4:18-cv-02539 Document 1 Filed 04/30/18 Page 1 of 59
1 Yasin M. Almadani (Cal. Bar No. 242798)

ALMADANI LAW
2 14742 Beach Blvd., Suite 410
La Mirada, California 90638
3 Telephone: (213) 335-3935
E-Mail: yma@LawAlm.com
4
Terrence M. Jones (Cal. Bar No. 256603)
5 LAW OFFICE OF TERRENCE JONES
6737 Bright Ave., Suite B6
6 Whittier, CA 90601
Telephone: (213) 863-4490
7 E-Mail: Terrence@jonesonlaw.com
8 Attorneys for Plaintiffs
9
10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
11 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
12 OAKLAND DIVISION
13
MOCHA MILL, INC., MONK OF MOCHA No. CV 18-2539
14 SPECIALTY COFFEE PRODUCTION
AND EXPORT, INC., IBRAHIM A. COMPLAINT
15 ALAELI, YASIR H. KHANSHALI, AND
ADNAN G. AWNALLAH, DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
16
Plaintiffs,
17
v.
18
PORT OF MOKHA, INC., PORT OF
19 MOKHA LLC, MOKHA FOUNDATION,
BLUE BOTTLE COFFEE, INC., METRA
20 COMPUTER GROUP FZCO, T&H
COMPUTERS, INC., MOKHTAR F.
21 ALKHANSHALI, AND IBRAHIM
AHMAD IBRAHIM,
22
Defendants.
23
24
25
26
27
28
1 I. NATURE OF THE ACTION .................................................................................... 1

2
II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE ............................................................................... 2
3
III. PARTIES .................................................................................................................... 3
4
5 A. PLAINTIFFS ................................................................................................................... 3
6 B. DEFENDANTS ................................................................................................................ 4
7 IV. RICO ALLEGATIONS.............................................................................................. 5
8 V. FACTS COMMON TO ALL COUNTS .................................................................... 7

9
A. THE FORMATION OF MOCHA MILL ................................................................................ 7
10
B. PLAINTIFFS INVESTED OVER HALF A MILLION DOLLARS TO FUND MOCHA MILL,
11 EDUCATE CEO MOKHTAR IN THE COFFEE TRADE, AND PROVIDE RESOURCES FOR
MOKHTAR TO BUILD RELATIONSHIPS FOR MOCHA MILL WITH YEMENI COFFEE
12 FARMERS AND HIGH-END DISTRIBUTORS ...................................................................... 9
13 C. EMBEZZLEMENT AND WIRE FRAUD AS PART OF A PATTERN OF RACKETEERING ACTIVITY

(APRIL 2014 – DECEMBER 2015) ................................................................................. 12
14
D. EXTORTION AS PART OF A PATTERN OF RACKETEERING ACTIVITY (MARCH 2015) ....... 17
15
E. MOCHA MILL BECOMES POISED FOR TREMENDOUS SUCCESS ..................................... 18
16
F. MOKHTAR EXPANDS THE RACKETEERING ENTERPRISE IN PREPARATION FOR A
17 CORPORATE TAKEOVER ............................................................................................... 19
18 G. CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT WIRE FRAUD AND EXTORTION IN FURTHERANCE OF A

PATTERN OF RACKETEERING ACTIVITY (JUNE - NOVEMBER 2015) .............................. 20
19
H. THE SCHEME TO SUPPLANT MOCHA MILL WITH PORT OF MOKHA THROUGH A PATTERN
20 OF RACKETEERING ACTIVITY....................................................................................... 21
21 I. MOCHA MILL CEO MOKHTAR SEEKS DAVE EGGERS’ HELP TO EXECUTE THE RICO
ENTERPRISE’S CORPORATE TAKEOVER SCHEME .......................................................... 22
22
J. CONSPIRACY TO SUPPLANT MOCHA MILL WITH PORT OF MOKHA USING WIRE FRAUD
23 AS PART OF A PATTERN OF RACKETEERING ACTIVITY: TAKE ONE (NOVEMBER 2015 –
APRIL 2016) ................................................................................................................ 23
24
1. Blue Bottle Conspires with the RICO Enterprise ................................................. 24
25
2. Port of Mokha Arranges for a Straw Buyer to Defraud Mocha Mill ................... 25
26
K. CONSPIRACY TO SUPPLANT MOCHA MILL WITH PORT OF MOKHA USING WIRE FRAUD
27 AS PART OF A PATTERN OF RACKETEERING ACTIVITY: TAKE TWO (APRIL 2016 – JUNE
2016) .......................................................................................................................... 29
28
Complaint – CV 18-2539 i
1 L. EXTORTION TO OBTAIN A RELEASE OF CLAIMS AS PART OF A PATTERN OF

RACKETEERING ACTIVITY............................................................................................ 33
2
M. OBSTRUCTION AND SPOLIATION OF EVIDENCE TO COVER UP THE RACKETEERING
3 CONSPIRACY................................................................................................................ 34
4 N. MONEY LAUNDERING IN FURTHERANCE OF A PATTERN OF RACKETEERING ACTIVITY. 35
5 VI. DISCOVERY RULE & FRAUDULENT CONCEALMENT .............................. 35
6 A. DISCOVERY RULE ........................................................................................................ 35

7 B. FRAUDULENT CONCEALMENT ..................................................................................... 35
8 VII. PLAINTIFFS’ CLAIMS FOR RELIEF ................................................................ 36
9
FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF ............................................................................................ 36
10
SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF ....................................................................................... 40
11
12 THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF ........................................................................................... 41
13 FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF ....................................................................................... 42

14
FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF ........................................................................................... 43
15
SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF ............................................................................................ 45
16
17 SEVENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF ..................................................................................... 46
18 EIGHTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF ........................................................................................ 47

19
NINTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF ........................................................................................... 49
20
TENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF .......................................................................................... 51
21
22 ELEVENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF .................................................................................. 52
23 TWELVTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF .................................................................................... 53

24
THIRTEENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF ............................................................................. 54
25
VIII. DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL ............................................................................... 56
26
27
28
Complaint – CV 18-2539 ii
1
Plaintiffs Mocha Mill, Inc. (“Mocha Mill”), Monk of Mocha Specialty Coffee
2
Production and Export, Inc. (“Monk of Mocha”), Ibrahim A. Alaeli (“Alaeli”), Yasir H.
3
Khanshali (“Khanshali”), and Adnan G. Awnallah (“Awnallah”) (collectively, “Plaintiffs”)
4
bring this action against Port of Mokha, Inc. (“Port of Mokha”), Port of Mokha LLC, (“Port
5
of Mokha”), The Mokha Foundation (“Mokha Foundation”), Blue Bottle Coffee, Inc. (“Blue
6
Bottle”), Metra Computer Group Fzco (“Metra”), T&H Computers, Inc. (“T&H”), Mokhtar
7
F. Alkhanshali (“Mokhtar”), and Ibrahim Ahmad Ibrahim (“Ahmad”) (collectively,
8
“Defendants”). Plaintiffs allege the following based upon information and belief and
9
personal knowledge.
10
I. NATURE OF THE ACTION
11
1. This action raises claims of conspiracy and violations of the Racketeer
12
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”), including fraud, extortion and money
13
laundering, as well as breach of fiduciary duty, interference with prospective economic
14
relationships, conversion, unjust enrichment, and unfair competition.
15
2. Before Mocha Mill, Yemeni coffee was considered inferior to most other
16
coffees. Plaintiffs’ business plan was to locate, cultivate, refine, import, and sell for the
17
first time in centuries premium, specialty Yemeni coffee. To accomplish this goal,
18
Plaintiffs invested years of effort and over half a million dollars developing relationships
19
with Yemeni farmers to locate, refine, and cultivate coffee varieties that have come to be
20
considered among the best in the world. Mocha Mill also spent significant resources
21
establishing relationships with and marketing to elite distributors worldwide, making
22
Mocha Mill’s Yemeni coffee the most highly anticipated coffee of 2016. Given this allure
23
and anticipation, Mocha Mill was poised to be thrust into the forefront of the specialty
24
coffee market to earn itself a tremendous competitive advantage through first-mover
25
relationships, establishing a dominant foothold in the industry.
26
3. Defendants, led by Mocha Mill’s own CEO (Mokhtar), knew this and sought
27
to usurp Mocha Mill’s business for competitor Port of Mokha through an extensive RICO
28
Complaint – CV 18-2539 1
1 conspiracy. Defendants used Mokhtar’s position of trust as Mocha Mill CEO to engage in
2 a pattern of racketeering activity involving numerous unlawful acts, including:
3 a. Embezzlement and Wire Fraud (Apr. 2014 – Dec. 2015);
4 b. Extortion (Mar. 2015);
5 c. Wire Fraud and Extortion Conspiracy (Jun. – Nov. 2015);
6 d. Wire Fraud Conspiracy (Nov. 2015 – Apr. 2016);
7 e. Wire Fraud Conspiracy (Apr. 2016 – Jun. 2016);
8 f. Extortion Conspiracy (Apr. 2016 – Jun. 2016);
9 g. Obstruction and Spoliation of Evidence (May 2016 – unknown);
10 h. Money Laundering (May 2016 – present)
11 4. Now, Port of Mokha thrives on the labor and assets stolen by the RICO
12 enterprise, which continues to benefit from its unlawful activities as well as money
13 laundering using criminal proceeds. Victim Mocha Mill continues to suffer injury and
14 damages as a result.
15 II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE
16 5. This Court has jurisdiction over this matter under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, based
17 on the federal claims asserted under the Racketeer Influence and Corrupt Organizations
18 Act (“RICO”), 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961 et seq., and 18 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1334, 1962, and 1964.
19 6. This Court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state-law
20 claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367, because all of Plaintiffs’ state-law claims are derived
21 from a common nucleus of operative facts and are of the kind Plaintiffs would ordinarily
22 expect to try in one judicial proceeding.
23 7. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
24 § 1965 and 28 U.S.C. § 1391.
25 8. Venue is proper in this District under 18 U.S.C. § 1965 and 28 U.S.C.
26 § 1391(b), because:
27 (a) the majority of defendants and witnesses reside, have their principal place of
28
1 business, are found, have agents, and/or transact business in this District; and
2 (b) a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claims raised
3 herein occurred in this District.
4 Furthermore, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1965(b), the ends of justice require that other
5 parties residing in any other district be brought before this Court given the significant
6 contacts in this District of most defendants and witnesses.
7 III. PARTIES
8 A. Plaintiffs
9 9. Plaintiff Mocha Mill, Inc. (“Mocha Mill”) is a California corporation with its
10 headquarters and principal place of business in Oakland, California. The company was
11 founded to locate, cultivate, refine, import, and bring to market premium Yemeni coffee
12 for the first time in centuries.
13 10. Mocha Mill’s business was stolen by the Port of Mokha RICO enterprise
14 through a pattern of racketeering activity.
15 11. Plaintiff Monk of Mocha Specialty Coffee Production and Export, Inc. (“Monk
16 of Mocha”) is a California corporation with its headquarters and principal place of
17 business in Oakland, California, and is the predecessor company to Mocha Mill.
18 12. Plaintiff Ibrahim A. Alaeli (“Alaeli”) is currently a citizen of the State of
19 California, residing in or around Alameda County. Plaintiff Alaeli is a partner and
20 shareholder in Mocha Mill and Monk of Mocha.
21 13. Plaintiff Yasir H. Khanshali (“Khanshali”) is currently a citizen of the State
22 of California, residing in or around Stanislaus County. Plaintiff Yasir is a partner and
23 shareholder in Mocha Mill.
24 14. Plaintiff Adnan G. Awnallah (“Awnallah”) is currently a citizen of the State
25 of California, residing in or around Alameda County. Adnan is a partner and shareholder
26 in Mocha Mill.
27
28
1 B. Defendants
2 15. Defendant Port of Mokha, Inc. (“Port of Mokha”) is a Delaware corporation
3 with its headquarters and principal place of business in Oakland, California.
4 16. Defendant Port of Mokha, Inc. is a member of the RICO enterprise that stole
5 Mocha Mill’s business and supplanted Mocha Mill with Port of Mokha through a pattern
6 of racketeering activity, including, inter alia, fraud, extortion, and money laundering.
7 17. Defendant Port of Mokha LLC (“Port of Mokha”) is a Delaware limited
8 liability company with its headquarters and principal place of business in Oakland,
9 California.
10 18. Defendant Port of Mokha LLC is a member of the RICO enterprise that stole
11 Mocha Mill’s business and supplanted Mocha Mill with Port of Mokha through a pattern
12 of racketeering activity, including, inter alia, fraud, extortion, and money laundering.
13 19. Port of Mokha, Inc. and Port of Mokha LLC operate interchangeably as “Port
14 of Mokha,” selling premium Yemeni coffee worldwide.
15 20. The Mokha Foundation (“Mokha Foundation”) appears to be a foundation
16 established and operated by Port of Mokha, but the foundation appears to be registered in
17 neither California nor Delaware. A portion of each sale of Port of Mokha coffee appears to
18 be funneled to The Mokha Foundation, which Port of Mokha appears to utilize to fund
19 certain company operations with Yemeni coffee farmers and help strengthen Port of
20 Mokha’s goodwill.
21 21. Defendant Blue Bottle, Inc. (“Blue Bottle”) is a Delaware corporation with its
22 headquarters and principal place of business in Oakland, California. Blue Bottle is a
23 major distributor and retailer of premium coffee.
24 22. Defendant Blue Bottle engaged in a RICO conspiracy with Port of Mokha to
25 defraud Plaintiffs.
26 23. Defendant Metra Computer Group Fzco (“Metra”) is a company based in
27 Dubai, United Arab Emirates that operates as a distributor of information technology
28
1 products in the Middle East.
2 24. Defendant Metra engaged in a RICO conspiracy with Port of Mokha to
4 25. Defendant T&H Computers, Inc. (“T&H”) is a California corporation with its
5 headquarters and principal place of business in San Carlos, California. T&H is a
6 subsidiary of Metra Computer Group Fzco. T&H’s business includes wholesale
7 distribution of computers, computer peripheral equipment, and computer software.
8 26. Defendant T&H engaged in a RICO conspiracy with Port of Mokha to
10 27. Mokhtar F. Alkhanshali (“Mokhtar”) is currently a citizen of the State of
11 California, residing in or around Alameda County.
12 28. Mokhtar is the CEO of Port of Mokha, Inc., and is a founding shareholder of
13 the corporation. Mokhtar is also a founding member/owner of Port of Mokha LLC.
14 29. Mokhtar is the leader of the RICO enterprise that stole Mocha Mill’s
15 business and supplanted Mocha Mill with Port of Mokha through a pattern of
16 racketeering activity.
17 30. Ibrahim Ahmad Ibrahim (“Ahmad”) is currently a citizen of the State of
18 California, residing in or around Alameda County.
19 31. Ahmad is the Operations and Finance Executive of Port of Mokha, Inc., and
20 is a founding shareholder of the corporation. Ahmad is also a founding member/owner of
21 Port of Mokha LLC.
22 32. Ahmad is the second-in-command of the RICO Enterprise that stole Mocha
23 Mill’s business and supplanted Mocha Mill with Port of Mokha through a pattern of
25 IV. RICO ALLEGATIONS
26 33. As alleged herein, Plaintiffs bring claims pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §§ 1962(c)
27 and (d), and 1964 of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”)
28
1 against all Defendants. The following allegations pertain to each claim for relief under
2 RICO.
3 34. Plaintiffs are each “persons,” as that term is defined in 18 U.S.C. § 1961(3),
4 who were injured in their business or property as a result of Defendants’ wrongful
5 conduct.
6 35. Defendants are, and at all relevant times were, “persons” within the
7 meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 1961(3), because they are entities capable of holding legal or
8 beneficial interest in property.
9 36. Section 1964(c) provides that “[a]ny person injured in his business or
10 property by reason of a violation of section 1962 of this chapter may sue therefore . . . and
11 shall recover threefold the damages he sustains and the cost of the suit, including a
12 reasonable attorney’s fee.” 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c).
13 37. Section 1962(c) makes it unlawful “for any person employed by or associated
14 with any enterprise engaged in, or the activities of which affect, interstate or foreign
15 commerce, to conduct or participate, directly or indirectly, in the conduct of such
16 enterprise’s affairs through a pattern of racketeering activity or collection of unlawful
17 debt.” 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c).
18 38. RICO defines an enterprise as “any individual, partnership, corporation,
19 association, or other legal entity, and any union or group of individuals associated in fact
20 although not a legal entity.” 18 U.S.C. § 1961(4).
21 39. Section 1962(d) makes it unlawful “for any person to conspire to violate any
22 of the provisions of subsection (a), (b), or (c) of [§ 1962].”
23 40. As alleged throughout this Complaint, the Enterprise orchestrated and
24 conspired with others to orchestrate and carry out coordinated schemes designed to steal
25 through a pattern of racketeering activity the business assets, relationships, and
26 opportunities that Mocha Mill had spent significant time and money developing, causing
27 injury and damages to Mocha Mill in the amount of tens and hundreds of millions of
28
1 dollars. Defendants conspired to and did conduct their affairs through a growing
2 association-in-fact enterprise, in violation of section §§ 1962(c) and (d), by engaging in a
3 pattern of racketeering activity as defined under § 1961(5), including wire fraud,
4 extortion, and money laundering as enumerated under § 1961(1), for the purpose of
5 improperly profiting from the racketeering activity.
6 41. Mocha Mill spent years and over half a million dollars to develop
7 relationships with Yemeni coffee farmers to identify, refine, and import premium
8 specialty Yemeni coffee for the first time in centuries. Mocha Mill spent significant effort
9 developing publicity and relationships with high-end distributors and retailers to launch
10 Mocha Mill with worldwide attention and gain a first-mover advantage that would
11 cement long-lasting farmer and distributor relationships and propel Mocha Mill to the
12 forefront of the specialty coffee industry.
13 42. Defendant Port of Mokha, in a RICO conspiracy using Mokhtar’s position of
14 trust as Mocha Mill CEO, defrauded Mocha Mill out of its best coffee and sold it under the
15 Port of Mokha brand just as Mocha Mill was about to launch. In the same conspiracy,
16 Port of Mokha stole all of Mocha Mill’s farmer and distributor relationships cutting
17 Mocha Mill at the knees.
18 43. Defendants’ racketeering activity had the desired effect of causing Mocha
19 Mill to lose its business, while Defendants enjoy tremendous wealth and success as a
20 result.
21 V. FACTS COMMON TO ALL COUNTS
22 A. The Formation of Mocha Mill
23 44. Yemen is the birthplace of coffee, yet centuries of underdevelopment left the
24 country’s coffee industry in obscurity. In 2013, Yemeni coffee was considered
25 unsophisticated and inconsistent. By contrast, Ethiopia had become a model producer of
26 premium coffee.
27 45. In August 2013, Defendant Mokhtar and Plaintiff Alaeli discussed the idea
28
1 of a business partnership to start a coffee import/export company cultivating, processing,
2 and distributing specialty coffee sourced from Yemen.
3 46. At this time, Plaintiff Alaeli was a successful, well-respected Yemeni-
4 American businessman with contacts in both the San Francisco Bay Area and Yemen.
5 Though now involved in a wide array of businesses, Alaeli got his start and developed
6 special expertise in agricultural distribution; so he was an excellent partner for a
7 business focused on distribution of green coffee sourced from Yemen.
8 47. Mokhtar was struggling at the time. He was a Bay Area Yemeni-American
9 in his mid-twenties who had been unable to complete his junior college courses or hold a
10 steady job.
11 48. To Plaintiff Alaeli, Mokhtar seemed like an eager, young, struggling Yemeni-
12 American who Alaeli wanted to help. Plaintiff Alaeli also saw a promising opportunity in
13 the coffee business and the ability to help poor farmers in Yemen.
14 49. At the time, Mokhtar knew very little about specialty coffee and coffee
15 production, and even less about running a business, let alone an international
16 import/export business.
17 50. In or about October 2013, Alaeli took Mokhtar under his wing; so began their
18 partnership and coffee company venture which would eventually materialize into Mocha
19 Mill.
20 51. Mocha Mill’s goal was to be the first company to market and sell premium
21 Yemeni coffee under the Mocha Mill brand, and thereby establish a strong and
22 sustainable foothold in the coffee market. A key part of the company’s vision and
23 marketing strategy was to help Yemeni farmers by training them to produce premium
24 coffee and paying them a fair price for their improved product.
25 52. It was clear to Plaintiff Alaeli and Defendant Mokhtar that to accomplish
26 Mocha Mill’s grand vision would require additional partners.
27 53. In or about April 2014, Mokhtar approached his uncle, Plaintiff Khanshali,
28
1 and Alaeli approached his friend and business associate, Plaintiff Awnallah, to join
2 Mocha Mill. Mokhtar’s uncle, Plaintiff Khanshali, was a successful business owner with
3 significant retail experience, and Plaintiff Awnallah was the owner of a successful
4 produce distribution company. In addition to bringing their own unique business
5 acumen, Plaintiffs Khanshali and Awnallah made large capital contributions to develop
6 Mocha Mill.
7 54. Plaintiffs Alaeli, Khanshali, and Awnallah and Defendant Mokhtar came to
8 an agreement in April 2014. They agreed to have a partnership with each partner owning
9 an equal 25% interest in Mocha Mill. Plaintiffs would provide the legitimacy and
10 business acumen, and pay all expenses to build and grow the company into a dominant
11 force in the coffee market. Mokhtar had no money at the time, so he agreed to initially
12 contribute “sweat equity” and later add capital when he had the means to do so.
13 55. In consideration of their respective investments, each partner agreed that he
14 would not start a competing coffee business. The partners trusted that Mokhtar would
15 honor his fiduciary duty and would freely share with them the knowledge and
16 relationships they would help him develop for their company.
17 56. Mokhtar was made President and CEO of Mocha Mill. As a company
18 executive, he drew a monthly salary of $2,500 and was given full access to company
19 accounts for expenses. The partners agreed that all expenses would be itemized with
20 receipts or similar proof.
21 B. Plaintiffs Invested Over Half a Million Dollars to Fund Mocha Mill,

Educate CEO Mokhtar in the Coffee Trade, and Provide Resources
22 for Mokhtar to Build Relationships for Mocha Mill with Yemeni
Coffee Farmers and High-End Distributors
23
57. From late 2013 through 2016, Plaintiffs invested over half a million dollars
24
to: (a) educate Mokhtar in the coffee business; (b) have him travel nationally and
25
internationally to develop relationships for Mocha Mill with high-end coffee distributors
26
and retailers worldwide; (c) have him travel internationally to develop relationships for
27
Mocha Mill with Yemeni coffee farmers; (d) train Yemeni coffee farmers to improve the
28
1 quality of their crop; (e) set up coffee processing infrastructure in Yemen; (f) identify,
2 refine, cultivate, and process premium Yemeni coffee varieties for Mocha Mill; and (g)
3 purchase, package, and import that coffee for sale worldwide.
4 58. Mocha Mill also paid thousands of dollars for the purchase, registration, and
5 development of a website and marketing plan.
6 59. Plaintiffs taught Mokhtar about business formation, management,
7 accounting, marketing, distribution, supply chain, and other business methods so that
8 Mokhtar could manage the coffee business operations. In return, Mokhtar was
9 responsible for on-the-ground development of the company’s business relationships and
10 day-to-day management of the business.
11 60. In January 2014, Plaintiffs funded Mokhtar’s trip to attend an international
12 Ethiopian coffee conference in Los Angeles, California on behalf of Mocha Mill. The event
13 organizer was Willem Boot (“Boot”), a coffee expert who owned the Boot Coffee company
14 in Mill Valley, California. Boot had co-authored a report on the state of Yemeni coffee
15 and was considered an authority on the subject.
16 61. At the conference, Boot saw Mokhtar as a novice and advised that Mokhtar
17 attend the consulting courses and certification classes Boot Coffee offered.
18 62. Plaintiffs saw tremendous value to Mocha Mill in educating Mokhtar in the
19 coffee trade as Boot had advised. Between February 2014 and May 2015, Plaintiffs paid
20 Boot Coffee approximately $18,800 in consulting and course fees for this engagement so
21 that Mokhtar could develop certain expertise for Mocha Mill’s benefit. At the time,
22 Mokhtar had neither the relationships nor the funds to do any of this on his own. He
23 relied entirely on Plaintiffs.
24 63. Between February and April 2014, Willem Boot and the Boot Coffee team,
25 including Stephen Ezell, Jodi Wieser (“Wieser”), and Marlee Benefield (“Benefield”),
26 educated Mokhtar in all things coffee, including, inter alia: (a) how to train farmers to
27 grow and process raw coffee for Mocha Mill; (b) how to taste and identify premium coffee;
28
1 (c) how to package and ship coffee properly to ensure freshness; and (d) which conferences
2 to attend to develop relationships for proper visibility and distribution. Boot also worked
3 with Mokhtar on the Q-grading certification, a coveted certification in the coffee industry.
4 Plaintiffs paid Mokhtar’s salary and all expenses to develop this expertise as their
5 partner and CEO of Mocha Mill.
6 64. Upon Boot’s advice, Mokhtar attended the annual symposium of the
7 Specialty Coffee Association of America (“SCAA”) in April 2014 to develop distributor
8 relationships for Mocha Mill. For this trip, Mocha Mill paid thousands of dollars in
9 membership, registration fees, travel expenses, and equipment. Plaintiffs joined Mokhtar
10 at the conference to provide guidance and legitimacy.
11 65. Boot devised a plan that called for Mokhtar to travel to Ethiopia to learn
12 proper production practices for training Yemeni farmers, and to Yemen to develop
13 relationships with coffee farmers and select samples for Mocha Mill. These samples
14 would be tested by Boot Coffee to identify Yemeni varieties for further Mocha Mill
15 investment and development.
16 66. In or about May 2014, Mokhtar traveled to Yemen to execute the next phase
17 in the company’s plan; Mocha Mill paid thousands in expenses and provided logistical
18 support.
19 67. To conduct business in Yemen required that it be done through a Yemeni
20 company. Plaintiff Alaeli met Mokhtar in Yemen and introduced him to Ahmed Mahyoub
21 Ghaleb (“Ghaleb”) to help Mokhtar navigate the Yemeni business community for Mocha
22 Mill, set up a Yemeni company to serve as Mocha Mill’s counterpart (the “Ghaleb
23 company”), manage the business in Yemen, and help Mocha Mill build farmer
24 relationships to acquire, process, and ship coffee to the United States.
25 68. Mocha Mill also paid for Mokhtar’s travel to Ethiopia to meet with
26 experienced Ethiopian coffee farmers and learn proper coffee cultivation methods to train
27 unsophisticated Yemeni farmers.
28
1 69. Plaintiff Alaeli met Mokhtar in Ethiopia to provide his young business
2 partner legitimacy and advice. Together, they attended an Ethiopian coffee conference
3 where Mokhtar was able to develop relationships with farmers and distributors for Mocha
4 Mill as company CEO and Plaintiffs’ partner.
5 70. In or about July 2014, Mokhtar returned from his trip with samples. Boot
6 tested the samples and graded four to five varieties as having tremendous potential. Boot
7 told Mokhtar that Mocha Mill had tremendous potential with these varieties. Based on
8 Boot’s reaction, Mokhtar realized that Mocha Mill had a blockbuster product on its hands.
9 71. Mokhtar went back to Yemen on behalf of Mocha Mill in October 2014 for
10 about ten months, taking with him the lessons he had learned from Boot and Ethiopian
11 farmers to refine and import the promising Yemeni coffee varieties Boot had identified.
12 Mocha Mill paid tens of thousands of dollars for the trip.
13 C. Embezzlement and Wire Fraud as Part of a Pattern of Racketeering

Activity (April 2014 – December 2015)
14
72. As President and CEO of Mocha Mill, Mokhtar had been given cash and full
15
access to company accounts. The agreement was that Mokhtar would undertake only
16
legitimate company expenses and would provide justification and receipts for all
17
expenditures.
18
73. Beginning as early as April 2014, Mokhtar devised a scheme to defraud
19
Mocha Mill and his business partners by, willfully and with the intent to defraud,
20
embezzling cash from company accounts under the guise of necessary and legitimate
21
company expenses. Each time Mokhtar withdrew money from a bank account or caused a
22
wire transfer to himself, he knowingly caused one or more interstate wires, which
23
naturally and foreseeably occur with each bank transaction. Furthermore, each time
24
Mokhtar requested or represented an embezzled amount as a legitimate expense over
25
phone, email, text, or social media to his partners, he made an intentionally fraudulent
26
wire communication.
27
74. Between April 2014 and May 2015, inclusive, Mokhtar made and/or caused
28
1 to be made bank and wire transactions, totaling approximately $92,990, for which he was
2 unable to provide any receipt or sufficient justification. Plaintiffs believe that each of the
3 unsupported and unjustified transactions was an act of embezzlement and wire fraud as
4 part of a pattern of racketeering activity. Each transaction utilized the wire facilities of
5 the United States either directly or indirectly through a foreseeable chain of wires
6 required for the transfer of U.S. bank. The transactions are detailed in the chart below.
7 Date Amount Account
8 May 26, 2015 $400 Bank of America '5331

10 March 25, 2015 $500 Bank of America '5331
11 March 10, 2015 $9,000 Tadhamon International Bank
12 March 2, 2015 $8,000 Tadhamon International Bank
13 February 26, 2015 $7,000 Tadhamon International Bank
14 February 16, 2015 $5,000 Western Union
15 February 9, 2015 $10,000 Tadhamon International Bank
16 February 4, 2015 $500 Bank of America '5331
23
February 2, 2015 $500 Bank of America '5331
24
25
26
27
28

5 January 28, 2015 $500 Bank of America '5331
17
January 15, 2015 $500 Bank of America '5331
18
19
20
21
22
December 8, 2014 $18,000 Al Shamahi Currency Exchange
23
November 19, 2014 $500 Bank of America '5331
24
25
26
27
28
1 November 13, 2014 $200 Bank of America '5331

10 October 20, 2014 $40 Bank of America '5755
11 October 7, 2014 $600 Bank of America '5755
12 September 16, 2014 $4,810 Bank of America '5755
13 September 11, 2014 $260 Bank of America '5755
14 September 10, 2014 $460 Bank of America '5755
15 August 19, 2014 $5,000 Bank of America '5755
16 August 18, 2014 $100 Bank of America '5755
17
August 5, 2014 $1,000 Bank of America '5755
18
June 26, 2014 $140 Bank of America '5755
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1 June 5, 2014 $500 Bank of America '5755
2 June 2, 2014 $400 Bank of America '5755

11 April 30, 2014 $320 Bank of America '5755
12
13 75. In December 2015, Mokhtar withdrew approximately $47,952 from Mocha
14 Mill Bank of America account ending in ‘5331, for which he provided no receipt or
15 justification.
16 76. In total, Mokhtar embezzled at least approximately $140,942 from Mocha
17 Mill accounts.1
18 77. Mokhtar kept promising to provide proper paperwork and receipts for his
19 expenditures, but never did. Mocha Mill froze his access to the accounts as a result.
20 78. Mokhtar also embezzled Mocha Mill coffee, sold it without his partners’
21 knowledge (causing foreseeable wires), and kept the proceeds for himself.
22 79. Upon information and belief, Mokhtar used some or all of the stolen and
23 embezzled funds to finance his RICO Enterprise, including Port of Mokha, and carry out
24 the schemes described below that ultimately allowed Port of Mokha to usurp Mocha Mill’s
25 business through a continuous pattern of racketeering activity.
26
27 1
Plaintiffs reserve the right to amend the figures in this section in light of
28 discovery.
1 D. Extortion as Part of a Pattern of Racketeering Activity (March 2015)
2 80. By the first quarter of 2015, Plaintiffs’ significant investments had, inter
3 alia: (a) enriched Mokhtar with tremendous knowledge, including optimal production and
4 processing methods; (b) funded Mokhtar’s Q-grader certification, which garnered
5 considerable respect in the coffee industry; (c) allowed Mokhtar to develop significant
6 relationships with Yemeni farmers; (d) allowed Mokhtar to develop significant
7 relationships with high-end coffee distributors and retailers worldwide; and (e) afforded
8 Mokhtar considerable legitimacy in the coffee industry. This was all funded by and
9 supposed to be for the benefit of Mocha Mill. Mokhtar owed a fiduciary duty to his
10 partners and to Mocha Mill, and they fully trusted him to honor that.
11 81. By March 2015, Mokhtar was confident that Mocha Mill’s coffee would sell
12 incredibly well, and the company would be a huge success. Mokhtar also knew that he
13 (not his business partners) had the knowledge and the relationships with the farmers and
14 distributors. Mokhtar knew that he could walk away with those relationships, albeit in
15 violation of his fiduciary duty and the law. At this crossroads, despite the deep trust his
16 partners had placed in him, Mokhtar resorted to extortion as part of a pattern of
18 82. Mokhtar secretly lined up other investors to start a competing company.
19 83. In March 2015, Mokhtar began demanding that his three partners give him
20 portions of their shares for no consideration at all. Despite the partnership agreement
21 and his fiduciary duty, Mokhtar threatened to start a competing company with other
22 investors. He threatened to walk away with Mocha Mill’s farmer and distributor
23 relationships and vast knowledgebase that the company had helped him develop.
24 84. Plaintiffs had completely trusted Mokhtar, as their partner and CEO; they
25 were now being taken advantage of for this trust. Plaintiffs pleaded that this was unfair,
26 contrary to their agreement, and would deprive them of their rightful shares, but
27 Mokhtar was intractable in his threats and demands.
28
1 85. Placed in fear that they would lose their entire investment because Mokhtar
2 held all the cards, Plaintiffs acquiesced to Mokhtar’s extortionate demands and signed a
3 “Partnership Agreement” on or about March 29, 2015, each agreeing to give Mokhtar an
4 additional 5% share in the company for a total of 15%. Through this agreement,
5 Mokhtar’s ownership in the company jumped from 25% to 40%, while each of the
6 remaining three partners’ ownership went down from 25% to 20%. In one extortionate
7 fell swoop, Mokhtar doubled his ownership in comparison to his partners’ for no
8 consideration at all.
9 86. In order to protect against future extortion from Mokhtar, the March 2015
10 Partnership Agreement memorialized certain conditions the parties’ had agreed to all
11 along, including, inter alia, that: (1) no partner would engage in a competing business;
12 and (2) Mokhtar would prepare and maintain for Mocha Mill a database of Yemeni
13 farmers that Mocha Mill had identified as producing the highest-quality coffee.
14 E. Mocha Mill Becomes Poised for Tremendous Success
15 87. With the Saudi-Yemeni conflict ensuing in Yemen, Mokhtar returned to the
16 United States in April 2015; he was met with media attention.
17 88. The coffee varieties Mokhtar brought back for Mocha Mill scored incredibly
18 well. Boot (considered among the toughest of graders) gave several varieties scores that
19 ranked them among the top coffees the world. CEO of Blue Bottle James Freeman gave
20 the coffee similar high marks.
21 89. At the SCAA annual symposium that year (2015), the Mocha Mill coffee
22 varieties were hailed as some of the best in show. The coffee received attention from
23 around the globe and Mokhtar started making deals with high-end distributors and
24 retailers such as Blue Bottle and Coutume.
25 90. Mocha Mill spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to purchase the best
26 crops of Yemeni coffee and have the coffee carefully processed and shipped to the United
27 States for sale to high-end distributors and retailers, many of whom had given
28
1 commitments in mid-late 2015 to buy the coffee in 2016. Being the first-to-market with
2 this highly anticipated premium Yemeni coffee was guaranteed to propel Mocha Mill to
3 the forefront of the specialty coffee market.
4 91. Just after his return from Yemen, Mokhtar also connected with Dave
5 Eggers, a well-known American author, and the two began collaborating on a book
6 focused on the development of Mocha Mill.
7 92. As CEO of Mocha Mill, Mokhtar started spending significant time with
8 Eggers to work on the Mocha Mill book, telling Plaintiffs that this was part of his “sweat
9 equity” in the company, and that his time as company CEO was well-spent with Eggers,
10 because the book would greatly benefit Mocha Mill’s marketing and business
11 relationships with major distributors, including Blue Bottle, Coutume, and others.
12 Mokhtar assured Plaintiffs that the publicity for Mocha Mill would be tremendous.
13 93. Upon information and belief, Mokhtar used Mocha Mill funds, embezzled
14 and otherwise, to pay for significant international travel with Eggers to explain the
15 development of the Mocha Mill company. Eggers liked the story, and a book and potential
16 movie deal were in place, built in large part on Mocha Mill’s time and resources.
17 F. Mokhtar Expands the Racketeering Enterprise in Preparation for a

Corporate Takeover
18
94. Mocha Mill had a blockbuster product. By Mokhtar’s estimates, Mocha Mill
19
was valued in the tens of millions shortly after the company’s successful showing at the
20
April 2015 SCAA symposium.
21
95. While still serving as CEO of Mocha Mill, Mokhtar secretly began lining up
22
investors loyal to him; the Mocha Mill partners/shareholders were kept in the dark.
23
96. Mokhtar solicited the Founders Fund (“Founders”) to invest in Mocha Mill.
24
Founders was interested; the Mocha Mill partners/shareholders were kept in the dark.
25
97. In or about Summer of 2015, Mokhtar secretly expanded the racketeering
26
enterprise to include himself, Ahmad, Stephen Ezell (“Ezell” – an operative Mokhtar
27
planted as “Director” of Mocha Mill to secretly work against Mocha Mill), and victim
28
1 Mocha Mill (the “RICO Enterprise” or “Enterprise”).
2 98. Mokhtar also enlisted attorney Inder Comar (“Comar”), an attorney for
3 venture capital groups like Founders, with close ties to Eggers, to serve as the RICO
4 Enterprise’s counsel. Mokhtar sought Comar’s advice on how to execute a corporate
5 takeover scheme involving fraud.
6 99. The Enterprise members engaged in organized and coordinated racketeering
7 activity, including numerous acts of trick, fraud, deception, extortion, and money
8 laundering, directly and proximately harming Plaintiffs.
9 100. The Enterprise had an informal hierarchical decision-making structure:
10 Mokhtar was at the helm controlling the Enterprise and controlling victim member
11 Mocha Mill (as its CEO) to do the Enterprise’s bidding; Ahmad was Mokhtar’s second-in-
12 command, plotting, advising, and carrying out orders behind the scenes. Ezell was the
13 workhorse carrying out orders from Mokhtar and Ahmad; Mokhtar gave Ezell a double
14 role, making him “Director of Mocha Mill,” working on the inside with Mokhtar to
15 sabotage Mocha Mill; and Comar served as the Enterprise’s counselor and lawyer to
16 facilitate the Enterprise’s racketeering activity. Port of Mokha was the Enterprise entity
17 designed to benefit from the racketeering activity.
18 G. Conspiracy to Commit Wire Fraud and Extortion in Furtherance of

a Pattern of Racketeering Activity (June - November 2015)
19
101. Continuing the pattern of racketeering, in or about June 2015, Mokhtar
20
engaged Comar to purportedly do some corporate work for Mocha Mill. Mokhtar and
21
Comar, however, conspired and devised a scheme to fraudulently dilute Plaintiffs’
22
ownership interests in Mocha Mill by having Comar provide inadvisable
23
recommendations to Mocha Mill, with intentional material omissions, under the guise of
24
legitimate legal advice. Mokhtar, Comar, and others utilized the wire facilities of the
25
United States to execute the fraud as part of a pattern of racketeering activity.
26
102. On or about June 22, 2015, Comar sent Mokhtar an email advising Mokhtar
27
to have his Mocha Mill partners mischaracterize their capital investments as “loans,”
28
1 despite knowing that they were capitalization investments, purportedly so that Mokhtar
2 and his partners could avoid tax liability. Tax evasion implications aside, this was
3 actually a way for Mokhtar to trick his partners into diluting their ownership claims to
4 Mocha Mill by inappropriately turning their capitalization into loans after-the-fact.
5 Mokhtar (as CEO of Mocha Mill) forwarded Comar’s email along with his (Mokhtar’s) own
6 endorsement to his unwitting partners (Plaintiffs) who were unsophisticated in the finer
7 legal points of corporate capitalization. Missing from Comar and Mokhtar’s emails were
8 the negative dilution implications and potential tax evasion liability.
9 103. Upon information and belief, Mokhtar and Ahmad also had Comar draft a
10 “Term Sheet Agreement” characterizing certain of Plaintiffs’ capitalization investments
11 as “loans” and giving 85% of the company to Mokhtar for no real consideration at all.
12 104. Between September and November 2015, Mokhtar again made extortionate
13 threats to his Mocha Mill partners (Plaintiffs). Mokhtar again threatened that he would
14 start a competing company with other investors unlawfully taking away Mocha Mill’s
15 knowledgebase and relationships if Plaintiffs did not sign the new agreement giving
16 Mokhtar 85% of the company. Mokhtar sent the agreement over email at least once in
17 October 2015.
18 105. This time Mokhtar’s partners felt more protected by the March 2015 written
19 partnership agreement that had memorialized the initial April 2014 agreement to not
20 start competing businesses. The partners refused to be extorted and so the Enterprise’s
21 conspiracy failed.
22 H. The Scheme to Supplant Mocha Mill with Port of Mokha Through a

Pattern of Racketeering Activity
23
106. The September 2015 fraud and extortion attempts having failed, members of
24
the Enterprise conspired amongst themselves and with others to devise and execute
25
another wire fraud scheme to accomplish their illegal corporate takeover.
26
107. While using Mocha Mill to carry on business activities, members of the
27
Enterprise secretly plotted to supplant Mocha Mill with a new competitor company called
28
1 Port of Mokha, funded and controlled by Mokhtar, Ahmad, Founders, and others. The
2 objective was to steal Mocha Mill’s most valuable assets, including its knowledgebase,
3 farmer and distributor relationships, first-mover advantage, goodwill, and publicity to
4 leave Mocha Mill in obscurity.
5 108. To accomplish this, Enterprise members conspired with others to engage in
6 various schemes to defraud Plaintiffs using Mokhtar’s position of trust as company CEO.
7 Each scheme involved numerous foreseeable acts of wire fraud comprising racketeering
8 activity.
9 I. Mocha Mill CEO Mokhtar Seeks Dave Eggers’ Help to Execute the
RICO Enterprise’s Corporate Takeover Scheme
10
109. Mocha Mill had devoted its CEO’s time to travel with Eggers for the purpose
11
of developing publicity for Mocha Mill through Eggers’ book and cement long-lasting
12
relationships with high-end distributors and retailers.
13
110. To steal this publicity, Mokhtar convinced Eggers to exclude Mocha Mill and
14
his Mocha Mill partners from the book despite all the support Mocha Mill had provided
15
for the book.
16
111. Eggers wanted to oblige his protagonist (Mokhtar) who was going to help
17
Eggers sell books. Eggers thus agreed, helping Mokhtar breach his fiduciary duty to
18
Mocha Mill and commit intentional interference with Mocha Mill’s prospective economic
19
relationships. Later, when the book was ready to be released, Eggers would tell Mokhtar
20
to get ready to sell tons of “Port of Mokha” coffee. The book and the coffee were marketed
21
together giving Port of Mokha the tremendous boost Mokhtar had promised Mocha Mill
22
as CEO.
23
112. At Mokhtar’s direction, Eggers wrote a false narrative concealing Mokhtar’s
24
questionable business dealings and schemes. Just as Mokhtar had directed, Eggers wrote
25
Mocha Mill and the victim partners (Plaintiffs) completely out of the story. Instead,
26
Eggers highlighted Port of Mokha along with Blue Bottle, Intelligentsia, and other
27
distributors and retailers with whom Mocha Mill was looking to develop relationships—
28
1 relationships that, as a result, were siphoned to Port of Mokha.
2 113. Untruthfully, Eggers told his readers that he had verified the facts in his
3 book and that the book was “as accurate and thorough as possible.” Eggers knew,
4 however, that true accuracy would hurt his narrative by exposing his protagonist,
5 Mokhtar.
6 114. Fearing legal action, Eggers repeatedly insisted that Mokhtar obtain a
7 release of claims from his Mocha Mill partners.
8 J. Conspiracy to Supplant Mocha Mill with Port of Mokha Using Wire

Fraud as Part of a Pattern of Racketeering Activity: Take One
9 (November 2015 – April 2016)
10 115. Starting in early summer 2015, the buzz around Mocha Mill’s highly
11 anticipated coffee had grown considerably. Many of the coffee varieties had scored in the
12 90s ranking them among the best in the world. Blue Bottle had begun advertising the
13 Mocha Mill coffee on its Instagram feed as early as April 2015. Coutume had done the
14 same in May 2015.
15 116. By November 2015, high-end distributors such as Blue Bottle and Coutume
16 had placed orders and made commitments to buy the coffee from Mocha Mill for $100 to
17 $135 per pound. Mokhtar (as Mocha Mill’s CEO) had agreed and the coffee had been sold
18 in principle.
19 117. After Mokhtar’s November 2015 fraud/extortion-based corporate coup d’état
20 failed (see supra § V(G)), and while Mokhtar was still Mocha Mill CEO, the two heads of
21 the RICO Enterprise (Mokhtar and Ahmad) sought to supplant Mocha Mill with a new
22 competing company, “Port of Mokha.” To do that, they realized they needed Port of
23 Mokha to be the first company to market Mocha Mill’s highly anticipated premium coffee
24 under the “Port of Mokha” brand and take advantage of the tremendous attention the
25 coffee was getting at the time. In other words, they needed to ensure that Port of Mokha
26 (not Mocha Mill) would sell Mocha Mill’s best coffee to the distributors Mocha Mill had
27 lined up. Port of Mokha would then easily be able to steal the farmer and distributor
28
1 networks that Mocha Mill had developed through years of investment.
2 118. The challenge was in obtaining the Mocha Mill coffee, however. Mokhtar
3 and Ahmad recognized that they could not just ask Mocha Mill to hand over the coffee.
4 After all, the victim Mocha Mill partners had no idea that competitor Port of Mokha was
5 in the works—that Mokhtar and Ahmad were plotting a hostile corporate takeover.
6 119. Mokhtar understood that if Plaintiffs got wind of his scheme, Plaintiffs
7 would not allow it. Plaintiffs were expecting a grand Mocha Mill launch with premier
8 distributors and retailers, paving the way for tremendous brand value, long-lasting
9 relationships, and increased growth. Plaintiffs had no intention of letting another
10 company swoop in and steal the imminent fruits of Mocha Mill’s labor and investments.
11 120. In order to take Mocha Mill’s ultra-premium coffee, Enterprise members
12 devised a scheme to defraud Plaintiffs into parting with the coffee as part of a pattern of
13 racketeering activity. Defendants Mokhtar, Ahmad, and Ezell, with Comar’s counsel,
14 conspired with Defendant Blue Bottle to mislead Plaintiffs into believing that high-end
15 distributors and retailers were no longer interested in buying Mocha Mill coffee.
16 121. Given the posture of the Mocha Mill brand and the excitement around its
17 coffee, it was foreseeable to Blue Bottle and Comar that the scheme would be long and
18 elaborate involving numerous acts of wire fraud, because email and text messages were
19 the preferred methods of communication between the players involved and would be used
20 extensively in the scheme.
21 122. To convince Plaintiffs that Blue Bottle was no longer interested in their
22 coffee, Mokhtar first had to convince Blue Bottle to play along and feign disinterest.
23 1. Blue Bottle Conspires with the RICO Enterprise
24 123. Upon information and belief, Mokhtar convinced Blue Bottle CEO James
25 Freeman that it was in Blue Bottle’s best interest to participate in the scheme, because
26 Eggers’ book showcasing Port of Mokha (not Mocha Mill) would boost coffee sales for Blue
27 Bottle. Mokhtar also promised to give Blue Bottle a prominent place in the book casting
28
1 the company in a very positive light to further build the Blue Bottle brand. In return,
2 Blue Bottle agreed to show a lack of interest in Mocha Mill coffee by not advertising the
3 coffee in its social media feeds as it had been doing and refusing to deal with Plaintiffs.
4 Mokhtar assured Blue Bottle that Blue Bottle would receive the coffee from Port of
5 Mokha once Mocha Mill parted with it after being convinced that high-end buyers were no
6 longer interested.
7 124. Blue Bottle knew of the Enterprise and intentionally agreed to help Mokhtar
8 with the Enterprise’s RICO fraud scheme. Blue Bottle planned the ruse with Mokhtar
9 and did as Mokhtar directed, exercising a level of management and control of the
10 Enterprise.
11 2. Port of Mokha Arranges for a Straw Buyer to Defraud Mocha

Mill
12
125. Mocha Mill had engaged Atlas Coffee (“Atlas”) to import and store its
13
premium coffee pending distribution.
14
126. In November 2015, Mokhtar and Ezell arranged for Atlas to serve as a straw
15
buyer for Port of Mokha. Through a series of fraudulent acts over the course of the next
16
seven months, Mokhtar and Ezell, as Mocha Mill officers, working in concert with other
17
Enterprise members and Blue Bottle, convinced Plaintiffs that high-end distributors were
18
no longer interested in buying Mocha Mill coffee for over $100 per kilogram.
19
127. Records appear to indicate that Mokhtar and Ezell also falsified coffee scores
20
(showing lower than actual scores) in attempts to convince Plaintiffs that Mocha Mill’s
21
best option was to sell the coffee to Atlas for $50 per kilogram.2
22
128. In December 2015, Mokhtar communicated with Comar over email seeking
23
advice on aspects of the fraud scheme. In one such email, Mokhtar expresses concern
24
that his partners (Plaintiffs) could become suspicious and derail the scheme, and asks for
25
advice that could help keep the scheme concealed.
26
27 2
The graders for these scores, Wieser and Benefield of Boot Coffee, would later be
28 given roles at Port of Mokha after the company illegally supplanted Mocha Mill.
1 129. Fearing that his scheme would be discovered, Mokhtar, as CEO of Mocha
2 Mill, instructed Atlas to communicate with no one at Mocha Mill but himself and Ezell.
3 Atlas obliged.
4 130. During the course of the Atlas fraud scheme, while Mokhtar was still Mocha
5 Mill CEO, Enterprise members and their co-conspirators sent and/or caused to be sent
6 several foreseeable wires in interstate commerce, each of which was an act of wire fraud
7 as part of a pattern of racketeering activity. Examples of such wires are summarized
8 below:3
9 a. On November 22, 2015, Mokhtar sent an email to Atlas copying
10 Enterprise members Ahmad and Ezell; Mokhtar purposely excluded
11 Plaintiffs form this email. The email reflected that Mocha Mill had
12 sold 240 kilograms of coffee to Coutume Café in Japan for prices
13 ranging from $100 per pound to $135 per pound.
14 b. On February 8, 2016, Mokhtar sent an email to Coutume Café copying
15 Ezell; Mokhtar purposely excluded Plaintiffs from this email. The
16 email confirmed Coutume Café’s order for Mocha Mill coffee and asked
17 Coutume to help find additional buyers in Japan.
18 c. On February 16, 2016, there was an email exchange between
19 Mokhtar, Ahmad, and Ezell reflecting plans for Port of Mokha
20 operations and management. The emails appear to discuss coffee
21 orders with Blue Bottle and Coutume Café, with Atlas Coffee acting as
22 the intermediary to process and ship the orders on behalf of Port of
23 Mokha. Plaintiffs were purposely excluded from this email exchange.
24 d. On February 22, 2016, Ahmad sent an email to Mokhtar copying
25 3
Plaintiffs believe that many more emails and text messages (each comprising an
26 act of wire fraud) were sent and/or caused to be sent in the course of the scheme. Before
Mocha Mill was able to discover the fraud, Mokhtar hacked into the Mocha Mill email
27 account and willfully and intentionally destroyed these communications to conceal the
racketeering activity. (See infra § V(M).) Plaintiffs were able to recover some of the data
28 Mokhtar had destroyed.
1 Ezell. The email contained a very broad release of claims for Mokhtar
2 to have Plaintiffs sign. Plaintiffs were purposely excluded from this
3 email.
4 e. Between March 5 and March 19, 2016, there was an email exchange
5 between Ahmad, Mokhtar, Ezell, and Blue Bottle, reflecting an
6 agreement in principle to buy Mocha Mill coffee and continue a long-
7 term relationship. This appeared to be for the benefit of Port of
8 Mokha (not Mocha Mill) even though Mokhtar was Mocha Mill’s CEO
9 at the time. Plaintiffs were purposely excluded from this email
10 exchange.
11 f. On March 19, 2016, Ezell received an email (at his Mocha Mill
12 address) from Conduit Coffee expressing interest in purchasing Mocha
13 Mill coffee. On March 21, 2016, Ezell forwarded the email to his Port
14 of Mokha email address. Per Mokhtar and Ahmad’s orders, Ezell kept
15 the email hidden from Plaintiffs.
16 g. On March 19, 2016, Ezell received an email (at his Mocha Mill email
17 address) from Lever Head Coffee expressing interest in purchasing
18 Mocha Mill coffee. On March 21, 2016, Ezell forwarded the email to
19 his Port of Mokha email address. Per Mokhtar and Ahmad’s orders,
20 Ezell kept the email hidden from the Plaintiffs.
21 h. On March 21, 2016, Ezell, as “Director of Mocha Mill,” sent an email
22 to Atlas Coffee asking Atlas to change his contact email to his Port of
23 Mokha domain.
24 i. On March 23, 2016, Atlas sent an email to Ezell’s Mocha Mill and Port
25 of Mokha accounts responding to Ezell’s inquiry concerning a coffee
26 shipment request to France, presumably to Coutume.
27 j. On March 26, 2016, Ahmad sent an email to the Executive Assistant
28
1 of Blue Bottle CEO James Freeman to set up a meeting the week of
2 April 11, 2016, to discuss the Monk of Mokha book and other coffee
3 related logistics for Port of Mokha. Mokhtar and Ezell were copied,
4 while Plaintiffs were purposely excluded. Mokhtar was Mocha Mill
5 CEO at the time.
6 k. On March 29, 2016, in order to ensure the scheme’s secrecy and
7 success, Mokhtar sent an email to Ahmad and Ezell directing them to
8 ensure that Atlas used only Mocha Mill (and not Port of Mokha) email
9 addresses if Atlas were copying Plaintiffs on any email.
10 l. On March 31, 2016, Atlas emailed Ezell in his capacity as Director of
11 Mocha Mill to discuss “the transition [of coffee] from Mocha Mill to
12 Port of Mokha.” At this time, Ezell was serving as Director of Mocha
13 Mill (appointed by Mokhtar), but acting on orders from Mokhtar and
14 Ahmad as an agent for Port of Mokha.
15 m. When Atlas refused to communicate with Plaintiffs on Mokhtar’s
16 orders, Plaintiffs retained a lawyer. On April 5, 2016, a lawyer
17 representing Mocha Mill emailed Atlas a letter concerning Mokhtar’s
18 prohibition on communicating with Plaintiffs. The letter stated that
19 Atlas’s refusal to deal with Plaintiffs was a breach of contract with
20 Mocha Mill.
21 n. On April 6, 2016, at Mokhtar and Ahmad’s direction, Ezell sent
22 Plaintiffs an email making it appear that it was in Mocha Mill’s best
23 interest for Plaintiffs to not communicate with Atlas. Ezell reported
24 back to Mokhtar and Ahmad about having sent the email.
25 o. On April 6, 2016, on Mokhtar and Ahmad’s orders, Ezell sent
26 Plaintiffs an email, copying Mokhtar at his Mocha Mill email address,
27 misrepresenting that Blue Bottle and other high-end distributors had
28
1 lost interest in Mocha Mill coffee. Ezell pretended that Atlas had
2 offered to buy the Mocha Mill coffee for $50 per kilo and advised that
3 this was Mocha Mill’s best option. Ezell made it appear that $50 per
4 kilo was a great price for the coffee and that a higher price was
5 unlikely given the loss of interest among the high-end distributors;
6 Ezell knew this was false and that deals were already in place
7 through Port of Mokha. Ezell stated that it was “the quickest way to
8 making money” and that he and Mokhtar agreed that this was the
9 best course of action for Mocha Mill.
10 p. On April 6, 2016, Mokhtar sent Plaintiffs an email seconding Ezell’s
11 recommendation and asking Plaintiffs to fix the relationship with
12 Atlas that the lawyer’s letter had upset, so that the deal could
13 proceed. Mokhtar also knew this was false and that deals were
14 already in place through Port of Mokha.
15 q. On April 10, 2016, Mokhtar sent Plaintiffs an email attaching
16 seemingly falsified coffee scores and providing elaborate explanations
17 for why the scores were low. This was done as part of the scheme to
18 convince Plaintiffs that high-end distributors and retailers had lost
19 interest in Mocha Mill coffee.
20 131. In early April 2016, Plaintiffs became concerned about Mokhtar’s
21 representations and tried to talk to Atlas about what was happening, but Atlas kept Port
22 of Mokha’s scheme concealed. After Plaintiffs involved a lawyer, however, Atlas backed
23 out of the arrangement and decided not to help Mokhtar and Ahmad fraudulently
24 transfer Mocha Mill’s coffee to Port of Mokha.
25 K. Conspiracy to Supplant Mocha Mill with Port of Mokha Using Wire

Fraud as Part of a Pattern of Racketeering Activity: Take Two (April
26 2016 – June 2016)
27 132. After the Enterprise’s Atlas scheme collapsed, Mokhtar and Ahmad devised
28
1 an alternative wire fraud scheme with a different straw purchaser as part of the same
2 racketeering conspiracy. Continuing with the theme that no high-end distributor or
3 retailer was interested in Mocha Mill Coffee, Mokhtar and Ahmad found (or rather
4 invented) a “new buyer” for the coffee, “T&H Imports,” in conspiracy with T&H
5 Computers and Metra Computer Group, both companies run by Ahmad’s extended family.
6 133. “T&H Imports” was a fake company created out of thin air solely to execute
7 the Enterprise’s fraud scheme. T&H and Metra knew of the Enterprise’s objective and,
8 acting through their executives Wael Fadl (“Wael”) and Mohamed Eissa (“Eissa”), agreed
9 to help execute the fraud scheme. T&H and Metra planned the scheme with Mokhtar and
10 Ahmad and did as they directed, exercising a level of management and control of the
11 Enterprise.
12 134. In furtherance of the scheme, on April 8, 2016, Mokhtar resigned from his
13 position as Mocha Mill CEO, telling Plaintiffs that he was no longer interested in selling
14 coffee. He left Mocha Mill in a difficult situation because it still needed to sell its coffee.
15 Mokhtar artificially exacerbated the situation by continuing to secretly sabotage Mocha
16 Mill’s distributor relationships, while leading Plaintiffs to believe that he would help
17 them sell the coffee on hand as a favor even after resigning. Cutting Mocha Mill at the
18 knees in this way was intended to make Plaintiffs desperate. It was a step towards
19 executing the fraud scheme.
20 135. As their names suggest, neither “T&H Computers” nor “Metra Computer
21 Group” was in the coffee business. Nevertheless, at Mokhtar and Ahmad’s direction,
22 T&H and Metra provided for “T&H Imports” to pose as a Dubai-based business interested
23 in selling Mocha Mill coffee in the Middle East, but actually serving as a straw purchaser
24 for Port of Mokha.
25 136. Through a series of seemingly genuine, but actually fraudulent email
26 communications, Enterprise members conspired with T&H and Metra to defraud Mocha
27 Mill into selling its best coffee (worth $135 per kilogram) for $58 per kilogram and giving
28
1 up its planned launch. During the course of the T&H/Metra wire fraud scheme,
2 Enterprise members and their co-conspirators sent and/or caused to be sent several
3 foreseeable wires in interstate commerce, each of which was an act of wire fraud as part
4 of a pattern of racketeering activity. Examples of such wires are summarized below4:
5 a. On or before April 21, 2016, Mokhtar, Ahmed, and Wael (of T&H)
6 created the fake email address wael.th.imports@gmail.com, in order to
7 give the appearance of a genuine company called “T&H Imports.”
8 b. On April 21, 2016, Mokhtar sent an email to Plaintiffs convincing
9 them to sell Mocha Mill coffee to “T&H Imports,” a company
10 purportedly “looking to expand into coffee” in the Middle East.
11 Mokhtar recommended that Mocha Mill sell all of its coffee to “T&H
12 Imports” for $50 per kilogram and generated an invoice to that effect.
13 c. Subsequently, Mokhtar changed his mind about buying all the coffee
14 and picked out only the best Mocha Mill varieties, which Mokhtar had
15 promised to high-end retailers like Blue Bottle and Coutume to be
16 marketed under the Port of Mokha brand. On April 25, 2016,
17 Mokhtar wired an invoice to “T&H Computers” in Fremont, California
18 in the amount of $50,000 for 1,000 kilograms of Mocha Mill’s best
19 coffee, and had T&H Computers wire $50,000 to Mocha Mill. Mokhtar
20 then created a counterfeit invoice in the name of “T&H Imports” using
21 Metra’s address in Dubai, stamped it “Paid,” and emailed it to
22 Plaintiffs to show that “T&H Imports” had paid for the coffee. But
23 Plaintiffs were under the impression that “T&H Imports” was going to
24 buy all of the coffee for $165,000, which prompted them to question
25 4
Plaintiffs believe that many more emails and text messages (each comprising an
26 act of wire fraud) were sent and/or caused to be sent in the course of the scheme. Before
Mocha Mill was able to discover the fraud, Mokhtar hacked into the Mocha Mill email
27 account and willfully and intentionally destroyed these communications to conceal the
racketeering activity. (See infra § V(M).) Plaintiffs were able to recover some of the data
28 Mokhtar had destroyed.
1 the transfer of only the best varieties.
2 d. On May 2, 2016, Wael (of T&H) sent Plaintiffs an email pretending to
3 be a bona fide coffee purchaser seeking transfer of Mocha Mill’s best
4 coffee.
5 e. On May 3, 2016, Mokhtar forwarded Plaintiffs an email pretending to
6 negotiate with “T&H Imports” on Mocha Mill’s behalf to make Mocha
7 Mill believe that the deal was genuine.
8 f. On May 4, 2016, Wael (of T&H) sent Mokhtar an email, copying
9 Plaintiffs, pretending to have bona fide negotiations with Mokhtar
10 while knowing all along that T&H Imports (a fake company) was a
11 straw purchaser helping to accomplish the fraud scheme set up by the
12 racketeering Enterprise.
13 g. These fraudulent negotiations led Plaintiffs to believe that the deal
14 was genuine. Soon thereafter, Mocha Mill transferred to “T&H
15 Imports” (in reality T&H Computers) 862 kilograms of its coffee (all
16 the best varieties Mocha Mill had on hand) for the $50,000 payment,
17 which amounted to $58 per kilogram.
18 h. Immediately thereafter T&H Computers sold the same coffee to Port
19 of Mocha for $51,000, taking a $1,000 commission for its part in the
20 fraud scheme.
21 137. On May 17, 2016, Port of Mokha sold under its own brand 390 kilograms of
22 the fraudulently obtained Mocha Mill coffee to Blue Bottle for $135 per kilogram. The
23 coffee was also sold for a similar price to Coutume, and other high-end distributors.
24 138. On May 31, 2016, in attempts to conceal the fraud scheme, Mokhtar sent
25 Plaintiffs an email insisting that the T&H deal was great for Mocha Mill.
26 139. On June 9, 2016, Mocha Mill’s highly anticipated premium Yemeni coffee
27 was made available for the first time and marketed heavily at Blue Bottle coffee shops
28
1 across the United States under the “Port of Mokha” brand. There was no mention of
2 Mocha Mill. Other high-end retailers and distributors followed in like manner. The
3 Mocha Mill coffee (branded now as “Port of Mokha” coffee) was recognized by experts as
4 an ultra-premium variety garnering some of the best coffee scores in the world, eventually
5 being hailed by the coffee industry as one of the best coffees in history.
6 140. In addition, images that belonged to Mocha Mill were/are used by Port of
7 Mokha and its customers, including Blue Bottle, to market the coffee, as well as by Dave
8 Eggers to promote The Monk of Mokha book alongside Port of Mokha coffee.
9 141. The stolen Mocha Mill coffee along with its attendant hype and publicity
10 noticeably improved the brand value and goodwill of Blue Bottle and other high-end
11 retailer and distributors, cementing long-lasting relationships for Port of Mokha that
12 rightfully belonged to Mocha Mill.
13 142. Port of Mokha thus usurped through a RICO conspiracy Mocha Mill’s entire
14 business at the critical moment of launch.
15 143. To date, Port of Mokha continues to thrive on the farmer and distributor
16 relationships, opportunities, publicity, first-mover advantage, images, and other assets
17 stolen from Mocha Mill.
18 144. Upon information and belief, a portion of each sale of Port of Mokha coffee is
19 funneled to The Mokha Foundation, which funds certain Port of Mokha operations and
20 helps maintain relationships with Yemeni coffee farmers by providing microloans and
21 training, and increases Port of Mokha’s goodwill. This means of operation was part of
22 Mocha Mill’s business plan and was also stolen when Port of Mokha clandestinely raided
23 Mocha Mill’s assets, relationships, and ideas through Mocha Mill partner and CEO
24 Mokhtar.
25 L. Extortion to Obtain a Release of Claims as Part of a Pattern of

Racketeering Activity
26
145. Upon information and belief, Comar and Eggers advised Mokhtar several
27
times to obtain a broad release of claims from Mocha Mill to avoid legal exposure.
28
1 Mokhtar knew that obtaining such a release would be difficult, however, so he resorted to
2 extortion once again.
3 146. Despite his fiduciary duty, Mokhtar purposely allowed the “mochamill.com”
4 domain to expire and directed Enterprise member Ahmad to purchase the domain in or
5 about April 2016. Mokhtar proceeded to use the domain as a bargaining chip in attempts
6 to extort Plaintiffs into signing a broad release of claims, engaging in both extortion and
7 wire fraud.
8 147. Furthermore, upon his resignation from Mocha Mill, Mokhtar had sole
9 access and administrator privileges to all of Mocha Mill’s internet accounts, including,
10 inter alia, the log-in credentials for GoDaddy, SquareSpace, G-Suite and G-Mail, and
11 various social media accounts such as Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram.
12 148. Even after his resignation from Mocha Mill, Mokhtar refused to give Mocha
13 Mill back these credentials and administrator privileges, essentially locking Mocha Mill
14 out of its own accounts. Mokhtar then used access to the accounts as a bargaining chip in
15 attempts to extort the Mocha Mill partners into signing a broad release of claims
16 absolving Mokhtar of all legal liability. The extortion attempt failed and Mokhtar did not
17 get his release.
18 149. Instead, Mocha Mill was forced to engage in a lengthy process to regain
19 access to its accounts directly from the service providers. It was not until late June 2016
20 that Mocha Mill regained access to many of its accounts.
21 M. Obstruction and Spoliation of Evidence to Cover Up the

Racketeering Conspiracy
22
150. After Mocha Mill regained access to its accounts, the company changed the
23
credentials and privileges away from Mokhtar, but inadvertently left Mokhtar’s phone
24
number on the G-Mail account as a recovery phone number. Using this recovery phone
25
number, Mokhtar hacked back into the Mocha Mill email account, locked out Mocha Mill,
26
and destroyed emails that evidenced his racketeering activity.
27
151. More recently, after sending Defendants notice of impending litigation and
28
1 requests for preservation of evidence, Plaintiffs have seen potential evidence disappear off
2 the Internet and are gravely concerned about continuing obstruction and spoliation.
3 N. Money Laundering in Furtherance of a Pattern of Racketeering

Activity
4
152. Transactional money laundering, a RICO predicate codified in 18 U.S.C.
5
§ 1957, prohibits monetary transactions of over $10,000 using criminally derived property
6
from specified unlawful activity such as fraud and extortion.
7
153. Through a pattern of racketeering activity, including fraud and extortion,
8
the Enterprise and defendants amassed large sums of money in criminal proceeds derived
9
from fraud and extortion. Defendants used this money to engage in numerous monetary
10
transactions of over $10,000 to grow Port of Mokha.
11
154. Each such transaction is an act of transactional money laundering that has
12
harmed Mocha Mill by allowing competitor Port of Mokha to advance its dominance in the
13
specialty coffee market as part of a pattern of racketeering activity.
14
VI. DISCOVERY RULE & FRAUDULENT CONCEALMENT
15
A. Discovery Rule
16
155. Plaintiffs did not discover and could not have discovered through the
17
exercise of reasonable diligence that Defendants conspired to and did engage in a pattern
18
of racketeering activity that involved fraud, extortion, and money laundering, giving rise
19
to the federal and state law claims raised herein.
20
156. Defendants’ RICO scheme and state law violations were elaborate and well
21
concealed. Indeed, it was not until Plaintiffs started seeing “Port of Mokha” coffee appear
22
at major distributors such as Blue Bottle and recovered some of the emails Mokhtar had
23
destroyed, that Plaintiffs realized they had been defrauded.
24
B. Fraudulent Concealment
25
157. Under the fraudulent concealment doctrine, the causes of action alleged
26
herein did or will only accrue upon discovery of the true nature of the fraud-based RICO
27
conspiracy and other violations perpetrated by Defendants.
28
1 158. Defendants maliciously concealed from Plaintiffs material information
2 required for the prosecution of Plaintiffs’ claims. Defendants took active and affirmative
3 steps to hide the true character, quality, nature, and extent of their illegal RICO and
4 fraud schemes, and other federal and state law violations. Plaintiffs did not discover, and
5 could not have discovered through the exercise of reasonable diligence, the true nature of
6 the RICO conspiracy and related violations perpetrated by Defendants, because
7 Defendant Mokhtar, inter alia, actively destroyed evidence to conceal his unlawful
8 activities.
9 159. Defendants are under a continuous duty to disclose to Plaintiffs the true
10 character, quality, and nature of the RICO and fraud schemes they perpetrated on
11 Plaintiffs.
12 VII. PLAINTIFFS’ CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

13 FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF
14 (Conspiracy to Commit Violations of the

15 Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act)
16 [18 U.S.C. § 1962(d)]
17 (Against Defendants Port of Mokha, Inc., Port of Mokha LLC,
18 Mokha Foundation, T&H, Metra, Blue Bottle, Mokhtar, and Ahmad)
19 160. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference, in this claim for relief, each
20 and every allegation of the preceding paragraphs, with the same force and effect as
21 though fully set forth herein.
22 161. Plaintiffs bring this RICO claim for relief under 18 U.S.C. §§ 1962(d) and
23 1964 for conspiracy to violate § 1962(c), against Port of Mokha, Inc., Port of Mokha LLC
24 (Port of Mokha, Inc., and Port of Mokha LLC are collectively referred to as “Port of
25 Mokha”), Mokha Foundation, T&H, Metra, Blue Bottle, Mokhtar, and Ahmad (for
26 purposes of this claim for relief, “Defendants”).
27 162. In or about April 2014, Mokhtar began engaging in a pattern of racketeering
28
1 activity using Mocha Mill as the RICO enterprise:
2 a. From about April 2014, through about December 2015, Mokhtar
3 committed numerous acts of wire fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C.
4 §§ 1341 and 1343, and grand theft by fraud in violation of Cal.
5 Penal Code §§ 487 and 532, to embezzle from Mocha Mill at least
6 approximately $140,942 as well as proceeds from clandestine sales of
7 stolen Mocha Mill coffee. (See supra § V(C).)
8 b. In about March 2015, Mokhtar engaged in acts of extortion in
9 violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951, and Cal. Penal Code §§ 518, 519, 520,
10 522, and 523. (See supra § V(D)).
11 163. In or about April 2015 and thereafter, Mokhtar expanded the racketeering
12 enterprise to form a larger association-in-fact enterprise that included Mokhtar, Mocha
13 Mill, Ahmad, Ezell, Comar, Port of Mokha, and others (for purposes of this claim for
14 relief, the “Enterprise”). The Enterprise sought to steal for the benefit of Port of Mokha
15 the business Mocha Mill had spent years developing. (See supra §§ V(F) – (K).)
16 Enterprise members and their co-conspirators shared the objective of usurping and did
17 usurp Mocha Mill by fraud and extortion. (See id.)
18 164. From about June 2015 through about November 2015, Enterprise members
19 conspired with each other and others known and unknown to Plaintiffs at this time:
20 a. To commit (and did commit) numerous acts of wire fraud in violation
21 of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1341 and 1343, and attempted grand theft by fraud
22 under California state law in violation of Cal. Penal Code §§ 487 and
23 532 (see supra § V(G)); and
24 b. To commit extortion in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951, and Cal. Penal
25 Code §§ 518, 519, 520, 522, and 523; Defendants did commit
26 attempted extortion in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951, and Cal. Penal
27 Code § 524. (See supra § V(G).)
28
1 165. From about November 2015 through about May 2016, Enterprise members
2 conspired with each other, Blue Bottle, T&H, Metra, and others known and unknown to
3 Plaintiffs at this time to commit (and did commit) racketeering acts, including wire
4 fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1341 and 1343, and grand theft by fraud in violation
5 of Cal. Penal Code §§ 487 and 532. (See supra §§ V(H) – (K).)
6 166. From about April 2016 through about June 2016, Enterprise members
7 conspired with each other and others known and unknown to Plaintiffs at this time to
8 commit racketeering acts, including extortion in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951, and Cal.
9 Penal Code §§ 518, 519, 520, 522, and 523; Defendants did commit attempted extortion
10 in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951, and Cal. Penal Code § 524. (See supra § V(L).)
11 167. After resigning from Mocha Mill, Mokhtar engaged in racketeering acts by
12 hacking into Mocha Mill emails accounts to destroy evidence in attempts to conceal the
13 RICO Enterprise and its unlawful activities. In doing so, he committed acts of wire
14 fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1341 and 1343, by maliciously and with intent to
15 deceive, misrepresenting himself to be a person with authorized access when he had no
16 such authorization. In fact, Mokhtar at the time knew that he was prohibited from
17 accessing the accounts, especially for the purpose of destroying evidence of criminal
18 activity. (See supra § V(M).)
19 168. From about April 2016 through the present, Enterprise members are
20 continuing to commit racketeering acts by using criminal proceeds derived from fraud and
21 extortion to engage in monetary transactions of over $10,000 to grow Port of Mokha; each
22 such transaction is an act of money laundering in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1957. Port of
23 Mokha continues to launder money to advance its dominance in the specialty coffee
24 market thereby causing direct and proximate injury to competitor Mocha Mill. (See supra
25 § V(N).)
26 169. As detailed above, at all relevant times, each member and co-conspirator of
27 the Enterprise was aware of its purpose and conduct, and was a knowing, willing, and
28
1 active participant in that conduct, as detailed in the preceding paragraphs. Each member
2 and co-conspirator of the Enterprise reaped substantial profits from the unlawful
3 activities of the Enterprise to the detriment of Mocha Mill.
4 170. As detailed above, at all relevant times, each member of the Enterprise
5 acquired, maintained control of, was associated with, and conducted or participated in the
6 conduct of the Enterprise’s affairs.
7 171. As detailed above, at all relevant times, the Enterprise and each of its
8 members: (a) had an existence separate and distinct from each of its members; and
9 (b) was separate and distinct from the pattern of racketeering in which Defendants
10 engaged.
11 172. As detailed above, at all relevant times, the members and co-conspirators of
12 the Enterprise were/are systematically linked through continually coordinated activities,
13 financial ties, and contractual business arrangements.
14 173. The Enterprise is an ongoing and continuing enterprise. The harm it caused
15 continues to date and it continues to engage in the laundering of criminal proceeds,
16 directly and proximately causing ongoing harm to Mocha Mill.
17 174. As detailed above, at all relevant times, the members and co-conspirators of
18 the Enterprise could not have accomplished the purpose of the Enterprise without each
19 other’s assistance and they all, with the exception of victim Mocha Mill, profited and
20 continue to profit financially from the Enterprise’s unlawful activities.
21 175. As detailed above, at all relevant times, the pattern of racketeering activity
22 undertaken by Enterprise members and their co-conspirators required and involved the
23 regular and foreseeable use of electronic communications including text messages, emails,
24 social media communications, and financial wires utilizing the wire facilities of the
25 United States.
26 176. As detailed above, at all relevant times, Enterprise members functioned as a
27 continuing unit for the purposes of engaging in the Enterprise’s racketeering activity to
28
1 accomplish the Enterprise’s core objective to steal the assets and business (including,
2 importantly, the farmer and distributor relationships and first-mover advantage) Mocha
3 Mill had spent years developing and planning; each Enterprise member agreed to take
4 actions to hide from others the existence of the Enterprise, its objectives, and its unlawful
5 activities.
6 177. As detailed above, at all relevant times, the RICO Enterprise engaged in and
7 affected interstate commerce because it, inter alia: (a) involved (and continues to involve)
8 the importation of coffee into the United States from abroad (Yemen), and the subsequent
9 marketing and sale of that coffee nationwide and internationally; and (b) utilized wire
10 facilities of the United States to carry out its schemes and unlawful activities.
11 178. As a result of the Enterprise’s racketeering activity, Port of Mokha
12 unlawfully supplanted Mocha Mill, causing Mocha Mill to suffer significant damages
13 amounting to tens and hundreds of millions of dollars. Simply put, Port of Mokha is the
14 stolen Mocha Mill. The Enterprise’s RICO violations through its members and co-
15 conspirators continue to victimize and injure Mocha Mill.
16 WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for relief as set forth below.
17 SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF
18 (Violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act)

19 [18 U.S.C. § 1962(c)]
21 Mokha Foundation, Mokhtar, and Ahmad)
25 180. Plaintiffs bring this RICO claim for relief under 18 U.S.C. §§ 1962(c) and
26 1964 of RICO against Port of Mokha, Inc., Port of Mokha LLC (Port of Mokha, Inc., and
27 Port of Mokha LLC are collectively referred to as “Port of Mokha”), Mokha Foundation,
28
1 Mokhtar, and Ahmad (for purposes of this claim for relief, “Defendants”).
2 181. The allegations in this claim for relief mirror the allegations in the First
3 Claim for Relief and so, for purposes of brevity, each and every allegation in the First
4 Claim for Relief as well as all the preceding paragraphs are alleged herein by reference
5 with the same force and effect as though fully set forth herein.
7 THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF
8 (Fraud & Deceit)

9 (Against Defendant Mokhtar, Port of Mokha, Inc.,
10 Port of Mokha LLC, and Mokha Foundation)
14 183. Plaintiffs bring this fraud-by-deceit claim for relief against Mokhtar, Port of
15 Mokha, Inc., Port of Mokha LLC (Port of Mokha, Inc., and Port of Mokha LLC are
16 collectively referred to as “Port of Mokha”), and Mokha Foundation.
17 184. As detailed in Section V(C), from April 2014 through December 2015, under
18 the guise of legitimate company expenses, Mokhtar willfully, maliciously, and with intent
19 to defraud embezzled at least approximately $140,942 from Mocha Mill for personal
20 expenses and to fund his competitor company Port of Mokha.
21 185. Plaintiffs made Mokhtar CEO of Mocha Mill and gave him full access to
22 company accounts for legitimate company expenses.
23 186. Plaintiffs relied on Mokhtar’s representations that he was drawing upon
24 Mocha Mill’s accounts only for the purpose of legitimate company expenses.
25 187. Mokhtar assured Plaintiffs that he would provide proof of all expenses but
26 never did so because the expenses were not legitimate.
27 188. Mokhtar’s conduct directly, proximately, and substantially caused Plaintiffs
28
1 to suffer significant injury.
2 189. Because Mokhtar’s fraudulent conduct was done maliciously, oppressively,
3 deliberately, and/or with intent to defraud, Plaintiffs are further entitled to an award of
4 exemplary and punitive damages, pursuant to California Civil Code section 3294.
6 FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
7 (Fraud & Deceit)

8 (Conspiracy and Aiding & Abetting)
14 191. Plaintiffs bring this fraud-by-deceit claim for relief against Port of Mokha,
15 Inc., Port of Mokha LLC (Port of Mokha, Inc., and Port of Mokha LLC are collectively
16 referred to as “Port of Mokha”), Mokha Foundation, T&H, Metra, Blue Bottle, Mokhtar,
17 and Ahmad (for purposes of this claim for relief, “Defendants”).
18 192. Defendants actively engaged in, participated in, agreed to, aided and
19 abetted, conspired in, and/or furthered a fraudulent scheme, which conduct constitutes
20 fraud and deceit. The fraud and deceit was designed as part of a deliberate and
21 intentional scheme to induce Plaintiffs to abandon significant business opportunities so
22 that Port of Mokha could supplant Mocha Mill as the company first to market Mocha
23 Mill’s highly anticipated premium Yemeni coffee, thereby stealing the attendant publicity
24 and business relationships rightfully due Mocha Mill, causing Mocha Mill to suffer
25 significant injury and damages that continue to date.
26 193. As detailed in Sections V(H) – (K), Defendants conspired and carried out
27 through a series of coordinated acts a methodical scheme to defraud Mocha Mill into
28
1 believing that high-end distributors and retailers were no longer interested in Mocha
2 Mill’s premium coffee. Defendants knew this to be false and willfully, maliciously, and
3 with intent to defraud intended for Plaintiffs to rely on Defendants’ misrepresentations.
4 Defendants perpetrated this scheme to steal the fruits of Mocha Mill’s investments and
5 supplant it with Port of Mokha.
6 194. Plaintiffs reasonably relied on Defendants’ misrepresentations. As a result,
7 Defendants’ intentional, willful, and malicious fraud and deceit directly, proximately, and
8 substantially caused Plaintiffs to suffer significant injury and damages amounting to tens
9 and hundreds of millions of dollars.
11 FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
12 (Fraudulent Concealment)
19 196. Plaintiffs bring this fraud-by-concealment claim for relief against Port of
21 collectively referred to as “Port of Mokha”), Mokha Foundation, T&H, Metra, Blue Bottle,
24 abetted, conspired in, and/or furthered a fraudulent scheme, which conduct constitutes
25 fraudulent concealment. The fraudulent concealment was designed as part of a deliberate
26 and intentional scheme to induce Plaintiffs to abandon significant business opportunities
27 so that Port of Mokha could supplant Mocha Mill as the company first to market Mocha
28
1 Mill’s highly anticipated premium Yemeni coffee, thereby stealing the attendant publicity
2 and business relationships rightfully due Mocha Mill, causing Mocha Mill to suffer
3 significant injury and damages that continue to date.
4 198. As detailed in Sections V(H) – (K), defendant Mokhtar was in a fiduciary
5 relationship with Plaintiffs and willfully, maliciously, and with intent to defraud actively
6 concealed and failed to disclose that Mocha Mill’s business plan was on track and that
7 high-end coffee distributors and retailers were anxiously waiting to receive and market
8 Mocha Mill’s highly anticipated premium coffee that would thrust Mocha Mill to the
9 forefront of the premium coffee market with significant positive publicity creating a solid
10 future for the company. Defendant Mokhtar conspired with others to actively conceal and
11 failed to disclose that deals-in-principle were in place; he did this to steal Mocha Mill’s
12 relationships, assets, opportunities, and business advantage in order to supplant Mocha
13 Mill with Port of Mokha.
14 199. Through a series of coordinated acts, defendants Blue Bottle, T&H, Metra,
15 and Ahmad willfully, maliciously, and with intent to defraud conspired with Mokhtar and
16 Ezell to help perpetrate the scheme to deceive Plaintiffs out of their business. (See supra
17 V(H) – V(K).)
18 200. Plaintiffs did not know of the concealed facts. Had Plaintiffs known the
19 truth, they would have been first to market their premium coffee at high-end distributors
20 and retailers, and would have received the continuing benefits that Port of Mokha stole
21 using fraud and deceit.
22 201. Defendants’ willful and intentional concealment directly, proximately, and
23 substantially caused Plaintiffs to suffer significant damages amounting to tens and
24 hundreds of millions of dollars.
26
27
28
1 SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
2 (Negligent Misrepresentation)
9 203. Plaintiffs bring this negligent misrepresentation claim for relief against Port
10 of Mokha, Inc., Port of Mokha LLC (Port of Mokha, Inc., and Port of Mokha LLC are
14 abetted, conspired in, and/or furthered a scheme involving negligent misrepresentations.
15 Defendants’ conduct induced Plaintiffs to abandon significant business opportunities and
16 provided Port of Mokha the means to supplant Mocha Mill as the company first to market
17 Mocha Mill’s highly anticipated premium Yemeni coffee, thereby stealing the attendant
18 publicity and business relationships rightfully due Mocha Mill, causing Mocha Mill to
19 suffer significant injuries that continue to date.
20 205. As detailed in Sections V(H) – (K), through a series of coordinated acts,
21 including acts of aiding and abetting, Defendants represented to Plaintiffs that high-end
22 distributors and retailers were no longer interested in Mocha Mill’s premium coffee.
23 Defendants were negligent because the representations were false, and Defendants had
24 no reasonable grounds to believe they were true.
25 206. Defendants intended for Plaintiffs to rely on the false representations in
26 order to steal Mocha Mill’s investments and supplant Mocha Mill with Port of Mokha.
27 207. Plaintiffs did reasonably rely on Defendants’ misrepresentations. As a
28
1 result, Defendants’ negligent misrepresentations directly, proximately, and substantially
2 caused Plaintiffs to suffer significant damages amounting to tens and hundreds of
3 millions of dollars.
5 SEVENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
6 (Breach of Fiduciary Duty)

13 209. Plaintiffs bring this breach of fiduciary duty claim for relief against Port of
18 abetted, conspired in, and/or furthered a scheme involving significant breaches of
19 fiduciary duty. Defendants’ conduct induced Plaintiffs to abandon significant business
20 opportunities and provided Port of Mokha, by deceit and other wrongful methods, the
21 means to supplant Mocha Mill as the company first to market Mocha Mill’s highly
22 anticipated premium Yemeni coffee, along with the attendant publicity and business
23 relationships rightfully due Mocha Mill, causing Mocha Mill to suffer significant injuries
24 that continue to date.
25 211. As a partner and CEO of Mocha Mill, Mokhtar owed Plaintiffs a fiduciary
26 duty of undivided loyalty, that is, a duty to act with the utmost good faith in the best
27 interest of his partners, Mocha Mill, and its shareholders.
28
1 212. As Director of Mocha Mill (albeit, planted by CEO Mokhtar), Ezell owed
2 Mocha Mill (not Mokhtar and Port of Mokha) a fiduciary duty of undivided loyalty, that
3 is, a duty to act with the utmost good faith in the best interest of Mocha Mill. Ezell,
4 however, acted against Mocha Mill interests on behalf of Port of Mokha on CEO
5 Mokhtar’s orders.
6 213. At all relevant times, T&H, Metra, Blue Bottle, and Ahmad knew of
7 Mokhtar and Ezell’s fiduciary relationships and positions of trust at Mocha Mill.
8 214. Without Plaintiffs’ informed consent, Mokhtar and Ezell (on Mokhtar’s
9 command) knowingly and intentionally acted against Plaintiffs’ interests by engaging in
10 the RICO conspiracy detailed above, including acts of fraud and extortion. Mokhtar acted
11 for the benefit of Port of Mokha and with the knowledge and assistance of T&H, Metra,
12 Blue Bottle, and Ahmad.
13 215. The primary goal of the numerous breaches of fiduciary duty was to steal
14 Mocha Mill’s investments and supplant Mocha Mill with Port of Mokha. Defendants were
15 successful in their goal and they all aided and abetted, and benefitted from Mokhtar’s and
16 Ezell’s breaches of fiduciary duty.
17 216. Defendants’ conduct directly, proximately, and substantially caused
18 Plaintiffs to suffer significant damages amounting to tens and hundreds of millions of
19 dollars.
21 EIGHTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
22 (Intentional Interference with Prospective Economic Relationships)

28
2 218. Plaintiffs bring this intentional interference with prospective economic
3 relationships claim for relief against Port of Mokha, Inc., Port of Mokha LLC (Port of
4 Mokha, Inc., and Port of Mokha LLC are collectively referred to as “Port of Mokha”),
5 Mokha Foundation, T&H, Metra, Blue Bottle, Mokhtar, and Ahmad (for purposes of this
6 claim for relief, “Defendants”).
8 abetted, conspired in, and/or furthered a scheme involving intentional interference with
9 prospective economic relationships. Defendants’ conduct induced Plaintiffs to abandon
10 significant business opportunities and provided Port of Mokha, by deceit and other
11 wrongful methods, the means to supplant Mocha Mill as the company first to market
12 Mocha Mill’s highly anticipated premium Yemeni coffee, along with the attendant
14 suffer significant injury and damages that continue to date.
15 220. In anticipation of the first sale of ultra-premium Yemeni coffee, Mocha Mill
16 had set up several economic relationships (and prospective relationships) with various
17 distributors and retailers of coffee; these relationships would have resulted in significant
18 and continuing economic benefit to Mocha Mill as clearly demonstrated by Port of
19 Mokha’s success (built on Mocha Mill’s labor and investments).
20 221. Defendants knew of these relationships. Nevertheless, Defendants willfully
21 and intentionally engaged in, participated in, agreed to, aided and abetted, conspired in,
22 and/or furthered various RICO violations, acts of fraud, acts of extortion, and breaches of
23 fiduciary duty.
24 222. By engaging in this conduct, Defendants knew that disruption of Mocha
25 Mill’s relationships and prospective business opportunities was certain or substantially
26 certain to occur. In fact, the wrongful conduct was designed precisely to disrupt Mocha
27 Mill’s relationships and siphon them to Port of Mokha.
28
1 223. Mocha Mill’s relationships and business opportunities were severely
2 disrupted, and all defendants, especially competitor Port of Mokha, benefitted
3 significantly from this.
5 Plaintiffs to suffer significant and continuing injury and damages amounting to tens and
6 hundreds of millions of dollars.
8 NINTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
9 (Negligent Interference with Prospective Economic Relationships)

16 226. Plaintiffs bring this negligent interference with prospective economic
17 relationships claim for relief against Port of Mokha, Inc., Port of Mokha LLC (Port of
18 Mokha, Inc., and Port of Mokha LLC are collectively referred to as “Port of Mokha”),
19 Mokha Foundation, T&H, Metra, Blue Bottle, Mokhtar, and Ahmad (for purposes of this
20 claim for relief, “Defendants”).
22 abetted, conspired in, and/or furthered a scheme involving negligent interference with
23 prospective economic relationships. Defendants’ conduct induced Plaintiffs to abandon
24 significant business opportunities and provided Port of Mokha, by deceit and other
25 wrongful methods, the means to supplant Mocha Mill as the company first to market
26 Mocha Mill’s highly anticipated premium Yemeni coffee, along with the attendant
28
1 suffer significant injuries that continue to date.
2 228. In anticipation of the first sale of ultra-premium Yemeni coffee, Mocha Mill
3 had set up several economic relationships (and prospective relationships) with various
4 distributors and retailers of coffee; these relationships would have resulted in significant
5 and continuing economic benefit to Mocha Mill as clearly demonstrated by Port of
6 Mokha’s success (built on Mocha Mill’s labor and investments). Defendants either knew
7 or should have known of these relationships and prospective relationships based on their
8 own close relationships with Mokhtar and Mocha Mill, and insight into the specialty
9 coffee industry.
10 229. Defendants knew or should have known that these relationships would be
11 disrupted if Defendants failed to act with reasonable care when they engaged in,
12 participated in, agreed to, aided and abetted, conspired in, and/or furthered the schemes
13 and numerous breaches of fiduciary duty orchestrated by Mokhtar and other Enterprise
14 members.
15 230. Defendants did fail to act with reasonable care by engaging in, participating
16 in, agreeing to, aiding and abetting, conspiring in, and/or furthering the schemes and
17 breaches of fiduciary duty orchestrated by Mokhtar and other Enterprise members.
18 231. Defendants engaged in, participated in, agreed to, aided and abetted,
19 conspired in, and/or furthered various RICO violations, acts of fraud, acts of extortion,
20 and breaches of fiduciary duty. By engaging in this conduct, Defendants knew that
21 disruption of the relationships was certain or substantially certain to occur. In fact, the
22 wrongful conduct was designed precisely to disrupt Mocha Mill’s relationships for Port of
23 Mokha’s benefit.
24 232. Mocha Mill’s relationships and business opportunities were severely
25 disrupted to Port of Mokha’s benefit. All defendants benefitted from this.
27 Plaintiffs to suffer significant damages in lost profits, past and future, amounting to tens
28
1 and hundreds of millions of dollars.
3 TENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
4 (Conversion)
5 (Against Defendant Mokhtar Port of Mokha, Inc.,
6 Port of Mokha LLC, and Mokha Foundation)
10 235. Plaintiffs bring this conversion claim for relief against Mokhtar, Port of
12 collectively referred to as “Port of Mokha”), and Mokha Foundation.
13 236. As detailed in Section V(C), from April 2014 through December 2015, under
14 the guise of legitimate company expenses, Mokhtar willfully, maliciously, and with intent
15 to defraud embezzled from Mocha Mill and Plaintiffs at least approximately $140,942 as
16 well as proceeds from clandestine sales of stolen Mocha Mill coffee, to use for personal
17 expenses and to fund his competitor company Port of Mokha.
18 237. Because Mokhtar illegally stole and converted Mocha Mill’s funds, Plaintiffs
19 have an immediate right to a return of those funds including all benefits derived
20 therefrom.
21 238. Mokhtar continues to exercise dominion and control over those funds for the
22 benefit of himself and Port of Mokha.
23 239. As a substantial and proximate result of Mokhtar’s unlawful conversion,
24 Plaintiffs have suffered and continue to suffer injury and damages.
26
27
28
1 ELEVENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
2 (Conversion)
8 241. Plaintiffs bring this conversion claim for relief against Port of Mokha, Inc.,
9 Port of Mokha LLC (Port of Mokha, Inc., and Port of Mokha LLC are collectively referred
10 to as “Port of Mokha”), Mokha Foundation, T&H, Metra, Blue Bottle, Mokhtar, and
11 Ahmad (for purposes of this claim for relief, “Defendants”).
13 abetted, conspired in, and/or furthered a scheme involving conversion. Defendants’
14 conduct induced Plaintiffs to abandon significant business opportunities and provided
15 Port of Mokha, by deceit and other wrongful methods, the means to supplant Mocha Mill
16 as the company first to market Mocha Mill’s highly anticipated premium Yemeni coffee,
17 along with the attendant publicity and business relationships rightfully due Mocha Mill,
18 causing Mocha Mill to suffer significant injuries that continue to date.
19 243. Because Defendants illegally stole and converted Mocha Mill’s entire
20 business, essentially supplanting Mocha Mill with Port of Mokha, and/or aided and
21 abetting the same, Plaintiffs have an immediate right to Port of Mokha, including
22 damages for all past and future profits of Port of Mokha commensurate with Plaintiffs’
23 stake, as well as punitive damages.
24 244. Port of Mokha continues to exercise dominion and control over a business
25 that rightfully belongs to Mocha Mill. All defendants have benefitted from this.
26 245. As a substantial and proximate result of Defendants’ unlawful conversion of
27 the Mocha Mill company, Plaintiffs have suffered and continue to suffer significant injury
28
1 and damages amounting to tens and hundreds of millions of dollars.
3 TWELVTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
4 (Unjust Enrichment)
10 247. Plaintiffs bring this unjust enrichment claim for relief against Port of
15 abetted, conspired in, and/or furthered a scheme involving unjust enrichment.
16 249. By their wrongful acts and omissions, Defendants, and each of them, were
17 unjustly enriched at the expense of and to the detriment of Plaintiffs or while Plaintiffs
18 were unjustly deprived. That is, Defendants’ conduct induced Plaintiffs to abandon
19 significant business opportunities Plaintiffs had invested serious time and money to
20 develop, and provided Port of Mokha, by deceit and other wrongful methods, the means to
21 supplant Mocha Mill as the company first to market Mocha Mill’s highly anticipated
22 premium Yemeni coffee, along with the attendant publicity and business relationships
23 rightfully due Mocha Mill, causing Mocha Mill to suffer significant injuries that continue
24 to date.
25 250. Plaintiffs seek restitution from Defendants, and each of them, and seek an
26 order of this Court disgorging all payments, commissions, profits, benefits, year-end
27 performance or other bonuses, and other compensation obtained by Defendants, and each
28
1 of them, from their wrongful conduct.
3 THIRTEENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
4 (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 – Unlawful, Unfair, and Fraudulent Practices)
6 Mokha Foundation, T&H, Metra, Blue Bottle, Mokhtar and Ahmad)
10 252. Plaintiffs bring this unlawful, unfair, and fraudulent practices claim for
11 relief against Port of Mokha, Inc., Port of Mokha LLC (Port of Mokha, Inc., and Port of
12 Mokha LLC are collectively referred to as “Port of Mokha”), Mokha Foundation, T&H,
13 Metra, Blue Bottle, Mokhtar, and Ahmad (for purposes of this claim for relief,
14 “Defendants”).
15 253. California’s Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”) prohibits any unlawful, unfair,
16 or fraudulent business act or practice. See Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17200 et. seq. The
17 statutory violations, fraudulent misrepresentations, and unlawful practices and acts of
18 defendants, and each of them, mentioned previously, constitute unfair, unlawful, and/or
19 fraudulent business acts and/or practices within the meaning of the UCL.
20 254. Defendants engaged in, participated in, agreed to, aided and abetted,
21 conspired in, and/or furthered acts and practices in violation of Section 17200 et. seq.
22 255. By engaging in the unlawful acts and/or practices alleged in this complaint,
23 Defendants have violated several state, federal, and common laws constituting per se
24 violations of Section 17200 et. seq., including, but not limited to: 18 U.S.C. §§ 1341 and
25 1343; 18 U.S.C. § 1951; 18 U.S.C. § 1957; 18 U.S.C. § 1962; Cal. Penal Code §§ 518, 519,
26 520, 522, 523, and 524; Cal Civ. Code §§ 1572, 1573, 1709, and 1710; and the common
27 law.
28
1 256. All of defendants’ unlawful, fraudulent, and unfair business practices were
2 designed to and did deprive Plaintiffs of the continuing business profits and opportunities
3 they were entitled to as a result of years of investment and development.
4 257. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ conduct, and each of them,
5 Plaintiffs have suffered and are continuing to suffer injury and damages.
6 258. Plaintiffs bring this claim for relief on behalf of themselves and the public as
7 private attorneys general pursuant to Business and Professions Code § 17204.
8 259. Pursuant to Business and Professions Code § 17203, Plaintiffs seek from
9 Defendants, and each of them, restitution and disgorgement of all earnings, profits,
10 compensations, benefits, and other ill-begotten gains obtained by defendants as a result of
11 Defendants’ conduct in violation of Business and Professions Code § 17200 et seq.
12 Plaintiffs also respectfully seek reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs under applicable law,
13 including California Code of Civil Procedure § 1021.5.
14 260. Pursuant to Business and Professions Code § 17204, Plaintiffs seek an order
15 from the Court enjoining defendants, and each of them, from continuing to engage in the
16 acts set forth in this complaint, which acts constitute criminal and civil violations of the
17 law and of Business and Professions Code § 17200 et seq.
19 PRAYER FOR RELIEF

20 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff pray that the Court grant judgment against Defendants as
21 follows:
22 1. An order enjoining Defendants from the further destruction/spoliation of
23 evidence;
24 2. Compensatory damages in an amount according to proof;
25 3. Disgorgement of Port of Mokha assets and shares according to proof;
26 4. Restructuring of Port of Mokha to provide Plaintiffs their rightful ownership,
27 shares, and decision-making authority at Port of Mokha;
28
1 5. Costs, restitution, and multiple damages under state law;
2 6. Treble damages under RICO;
3 7. Punitive and exemplary damages under state law;
4 8. Any and all applicable statutory and civil penalties;
5 9. Pre- and post-judgment interest on any amounts awarded;
6 10. An award of attorneys’ fees and costs, including expert costs;
7 11. A declaration that all applicable statutes of limitations are tolled under the
8 discovery rule or due to the fraudulent concealment alleged in this Complaint, and that
9 Defendants are estopped from relying on any statute of limitation as a defense;
10 12. An order enjoining Defendants from dissipating assets to avoid judgment;
11 13. Leave to amend this Complaint to conform to the evidence produced in
12 discovery and at trial; and
13 14. Such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.
14 VIII. DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

15 Plaintiffs demand a jury trial on all triable issues.
16
17 Dated: April 30, 2018 Respectfully submitted,
18
/s/ Yasin M. Almadani
19 YASIN M. ALMADANI
ALMADANI LAW
20
21 TERRENCE M. JONES
LAW OFFICE OF TERRENCE JONES
22
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
23
24
25
26
27
28

18.04.30 - Complaint - Filed

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

18.04.30 - Complaint - Filed

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Case 4:18-cv-02539 Document 1 Filed 04/30/18 Page 1 of 59

1 Yasin M. Almadani (Cal. Bar No. 242798)

8 Attorneys for Plaintiffs

11 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

1 I. NATURE OF THE ACTION .................................................................................... 1

7 IV. RICO ALLEGATIONS.............................................................................................. 5

8 V. FACTS COMMON TO ALL COUNTS .................................................................... 7

13 C. EMBEZZLEMENT AND WIRE FRAUD AS PART OF A PATTERN OF RACKETEERING ACTIVITY

18 G. CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT WIRE FRAUD AND EXTORTION IN FURTHERANCE OF A

1 L. EXTORTION TO OBTAIN A RELEASE OF CLAIMS AS PART OF A PATTERN OF

4 N. MONEY LAUNDERING IN FURTHERANCE OF A PATTERN OF RACKETEERING ACTIVITY. 35

5 VI. DISCOVERY RULE & FRAUDULENT CONCEALMENT .............................. 35

6 A. DISCOVERY RULE ........................................................................................................ 35

13 FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF ....................................................................................... 42

18 EIGHTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF ........................................................................................ 47

23 TWELVTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF .................................................................................... 53

2 a pattern of racketeering activity involving numerous unlawful acts, including:

3 a. Embezzlement and Wire Fraud (Apr. 2014 – Dec. 2015);

4 b. Extortion (Mar. 2015);

5 c. Wire Fraud and Extortion Conspiracy (Jun. – Nov. 2015);

6 d. Wire Fraud Conspiracy (Nov. 2015 – Apr. 2016);

7 e. Wire Fraud Conspiracy (Apr. 2016 – Jun. 2016);

8 f. Extortion Conspiracy (Apr. 2016 – Jun. 2016);

9 g. Obstruction and Spoliation of Evidence (May 2016 – unknown);

10 h. Money Laundering (May 2016 – present)

15 II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

19 6. This Court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state-law

22 expect to try in one judicial proceeding.

23 7. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants pursuant to 18 U.S.C.

24 § 1965 and 28 U.S.C. § 1391.

25 8. Venue is proper in this District under 18 U.S.C. § 1965 and 28 U.S.C.

3 herein occurred in this District.

6 contacts in this District of most defendants and witnesses.

12 for the first time in centuries.

14 through a pattern of racketeering activity.

16 of Mocha”) is a California corporation with its headquarters and principal place of

17 business in Oakland, California, and is the predecessor company to Mocha Mill.

18 12. Plaintiff Ibrahim A. Alaeli (“Alaeli”) is currently a citizen of the State of

19 California, residing in or around Alameda County. Plaintiff Alaeli is a partner and

20 shareholder in Mocha Mill and Monk of Mocha.

21 13. Plaintiff Yasir H. Khanshali (“Khanshali”) is currently a citizen of the State

22 of California, residing in or around Stanislaus County. Plaintiff Yasir is a partner and

23 shareholder in Mocha Mill.

24 14. Plaintiff Adnan G. Awnallah (“Awnallah”) is currently a citizen of the State

25 of California, residing in or around Alameda County. Adnan is a partner and shareholder

2 15. Defendant Port of Mokha, Inc. (“Port of Mokha”) is a Delaware corporation

3 with its headquarters and principal place of business in Oakland, California.

7 17. Defendant Port of Mokha LLC (“Port of Mokha”) is a Delaware limited

14 of Mokha,” selling premium Yemeni coffee worldwide.

15 20. The Mokha Foundation (“Mokha Foundation”) appears to be a foundation

22 headquarters and principal place of business in Oakland, California. Blue Bottle is a

23 major distributor and retailer of premium coffee.

26 23. Defendant Metra Computer Group Fzco (“Metra”) is a company based in

27 Dubai, United Arab Emirates that operates as a distributor of information technology

1 products in the Middle East.

2 24. Defendant Metra engaged in a RICO conspiracy with Port of Mokha to

5 headquarters and principal place of business in San Carlos, California. T&H is a

6 subsidiary of Metra Computer Group Fzco. T&H’s business includes wholesale

7 distribution of computers, computer peripheral equipment, and computer software.

8 26. Defendant T&H engaged in a RICO conspiracy with Port of Mokha to

10 27. Mokhtar F. Alkhanshali (“Mokhtar”) is currently a citizen of the State of

11 California, residing in or around Alameda County.

13 the corporation. Mokhtar is also a founding member/owner of Port of Mokha LLC.

17 30. Ibrahim Ahmad Ibrahim (“Ahmad”) is currently a citizen of the State of